Leigh
Ramsay
Citipointe
church
322
Wecker Rd
Carindale
QLD 4152 12th Sept. 2012
Dear
Leigh
Following
on from my letter of 21st.
August which, as is your habit, you have failed to acknowledge or
respond to. Another three weeks of silence!
I
think it is fairly safe now to work on the presumption that you have
no desire at all to see R and SM re-integrated back into their
family; that Citipointe church intends to retain custody of the girls
regardless of their mother’s wishes or of C’s ability now to care
for her own daughters. As a consequence I will have to do whatever I
can to see that R and SM are able to rejoin their family.
Given
Citipointe’s refusal to take into account the wishes of C, Ch or R
and SM, (who wish to rejoin their family) I will make it clear to the
Minister of Social Affairs (with my actions and not just my words)
that C and Ch are in a position to support all five of their
children. To this end I will open a bank account for the family into
which I can make regular payments that will meet all of their basic
ongoing living expenses – guaranteeing that the children are all
well fed, going to school and able to meet any medical expenses that
may arise. Beyond meeting these basic living requirements it will be
up to C and Chhork to find a way (with my help) to become
self-sufficient to the point where my assistance is no longer
required. This may, in reality, take a few years. I do not wish them
to become dependent on me for their survival.
Having
provided a level of income security for the family I will present
evidence of this to the Minister of Social Affairs – along with a
question:
“What
reason can there possibly be now for Citipointe church to hold R and
SM against the wishes of their mother?”
I
cannot, of course, second guess what the Minister’s response will
be to this question. However, I find it hard to imagine how, in
accordance with Cambodian law, he can recommend that R and SM remain
in the custody of Citipointe church when their own parents are able
to care for them. R and SM have a right to be brought up by their own
parents and not in an institution. They are not orphans, but then
this applies to most (if not all) of the girls that you advertise to
potential donors to the ‘She’ refuge as having been rescued from
the sex trade. In my view such false advertizing is just another form
of exploitation and one that Citipointe church should not be engaging
in; a form of exploitation that Christians acting in accordance with
their professed values, should be ashamed to engage in. It is a form
of exploitation that Chab Dai should be discouraging and not
encouraging in a fellow Christian NGO. Citipointe church’s
behaviour in presenting its ‘She’ refuge to the world as a refuge
for victims of sex trafficking brings the whole NGO community into
disrepute – especially those Christian NGOs that are genuinely
committed to the reintegration of disadvantaged children (including
genuine victims of the sex trade) back into their families and
communities; those NGOs which acknowledge the right of children to be
brought up by their parents, within their families and communities,
and not in an institution run by foreigners who seek to alienate them
from their Buddhist religion and the culture of which their parents
are a part.
I
imagine that you will fight tooth and nail to retain custody of R and
SM regardless of their changed circumstances (they are no doubt great
attractions on Citipointe’s ‘Poverty Tours’) and can only hope
that someone in a position to do so asks you, asks Citipointe church,
to mount a strong argument as to why these young Cambodian girls are
better off growing up in a Christian institution than with their
Buddhist family.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
