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

letter # 13 for Leigh Ramsay

Leigh Ramsay

Citipointe church

322 Wecker Rd

Carindale QLD 4152                                                                                         24th Oct 2012

Dear Leigh

Following on from my letters of 21st. August and 12th Sept, along with the 10 or so others sent to you this past few months - all of which you have failed to acknowledge or respond to. 


I am back in Phnom Penh. Nothing has changed. There is no family re-integration program in place. R and SM are still in the custody of Citipointe church's 'She' refuge despite their mother's repeated requests, the most recent in writing, that her daughters be returned to her care. You took custody of R and SM years ago now in a manner that was illegal, immoral and contrary to all the basic precepts of Christianity as I understand the religion. You hoodwinked C into placing her thumb print on a piece of paper (one page) that you then told her was a contract giving Citipointe church complete control of R and SM until they were 18 and which severely limited C's visiting rights. This was a lie. The 'contract ', unsigned by anyone from the church, gave Citipointe no such rights. Indeed, it gave you no rights at all and contained no details other than that C wished Citiopointe to help her care for her daughters. Rather than assist the whole family (as you promised both C and myself) Citipointe  took control of C's daughters in a way that you knew caused her a great deal of anguish and have held the girls for around 4 years now. How dare you do this, Leigh! What kind of a Christian are you?

I cannot speak on behalf of the other girls in Citipoint's 'She' refuge (though I have been told that not one of them has been rescued from the sex trade!) but I can say, with a mass of evidence to back me up, that in relation to R and SM, the 'She'refuge is a sham, a scam - passing off the daughters of a poor family (C's) as having been victims of child trafficking or having been rescued from the sex trade. That Citipointe conducts 'poverty tours' that enable young Christians to fill Citipointe's coffers by paying to come to Cambodia to hang out with cute young girls whom they believe have been rescued from the sex trade is a form of exploitation in itself.


I will continue to fight for the right of Chanti to have her daughters returned to her care and trust that you will accede to her wishes and think of the mother's and daughters rights primarily and not of the benefits to be reaped by Citipointe church in retaining custody of R and SM.


best wishes


James Ricketson