Tuesday, September 11, 2012

letter # 12 to Leigh Ramsay


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


No comments:

Post a Comment