Naly Pilorge & Helen Sworn
LICADHO & Chab Dai
18th March 2013
Dear Naly and Helen
LICADHO & Chab Dai
18th March 2013
Dear Naly and Helen
A
few days ago, with only one hour’s notice, Citipointe church organized Chanti, Rosa and Chita’s monthly visit with
each other. This visit led to my writing to Pastors Leigh Ramsay and Brian
Mulheran a letter that I posted on my blog at:
http://citipointechurch.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-family-visit-for-rosa-and-chita.html
The
questions in my letter, like all questions directed at Citipointe church,
remain unanswered. These questions do not come from myself alone but from
myself acting as Chanti’s advocate. From Chab Dai website:
"‣Advocacy & Research. This is a
long-term element of Chab Dai Coalition’s work, and one that is often less
appealing to supporters. Advocacy, or speaking up on behalf of
vulnerable children and communities, is vital to plant the seed of change
within Cambodia and beyond."
Chanti,
her husband Chhork and their daughters Rosa and Chita have no-one other than
myself advocating on their behalf. LICADHO and Chab Dai seem to have no
interest at all in the fact that Citipointe has sought justification for its
human rights abuses of Chanti, Rosa and Chita by citing both organizations as
having ‘green lit’ the church’s actions.
Yesterday
I wrote a follow up letter to Pastors Leigh Ramsay and Brian Mulheran, posted
on my blog at:
I
will not get a response to this letter, just as I have received no answers to
any previous questions. From the Chab Dai website:
“…the Chab Dai Charter
outlines 15 principles that coalition members in Cambodia have identified as
collective values. These principles have been categorized into four areas: protection,
collaboration, participation and transparency."
(a)
What is Citipointe protecting Rosa and Chita from?
(b)
Citipointe has refused my many requests made over the years (as is evidenced on
my blog) to collaborate with me in assisting Chanti’s family.
(c) Citipointe’s lack of commitment to transparency is evidenced by its refusal to
provide Chanti with copies of any documents that provide the church with legal
justification for the removal of Rosa and Chita’s from their parents care back
in 2009 and 2009. Tp be specific, contracts between Citipointe and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Social Affairs.
The
refusal of Citipointe to provide documented proof of its legal right to have
removed Rosa and Chita from their parents care, in conjunction with Chab Dai’s
and LICADHO’S decision not to get involved in any way in Chanti’s close to 5
year battle to have her daughters returned to her care has left me with little
choice but to write to the Minister of Social Affairs to ask him to conduct an
investigation into the circumstances surrounding the removal of Rosa and Chita
from the care of their parents. If this yields no results (and the Minister has
never once even acknowledged receipt of any latter from myself or Chanti) I
will ask Australia’s Attorney General to request of the Federal Police that
they investigate the illegal removal of Rosa and Chita from their family in
July and August 2008.
Enclosed
is a copy of the ‘contract’, in Khmer, that Citipointe induced Chanti and her
mother Vanna to sign on 31st. July 2008. This is the only document
that Chanti has a copy of that relates to the removal of her children. Her
requests and my own requests of Citipointe church for close to five years that
she be provided with legal documents relating to the loss of her children have
been ignored by Citipointe.
A
translation of the document reads as follows:
KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA
Nation Religion King
name: YEM CHANTHY, age 21, and name:
CHAB VANNA, age 52, job: morning glory seller, address: along the riverfront street,
Central market.
TO
Director of CT Point International
Rescue and Care Organization
Objective: request for my child or
grandchild, name: CHANTHY ROZA, sex: female, age: 6 and name: CHANTHY CHEATA,
sex: female, age:3 to stay in the center of CT Point International Rescue and
Care Organization.
As mentioned in the objective, we, both
are mother and grandmother of the above two children, would like to inform the
Director that: nowadays, we have no house, living along the street and have no
job and cannot provide enough food for feeding the two children. Moreover, we
would like the two children to have safe shelter and get enough food, as well
as education.
As mentioned, please the Director
permits our two children to live in the care center by favor.
Please the Director receives the great
respect from us.
Phnom Penh, Date: July 31, 2008
Mother's
thumbprint
Grandmother's thumbprint
Neither
Chanti nor Vanna can read or write Khmer, raising the question: Who drew up
this ‘contract’? It is worth pointing out that whoever drew it up got one
significant fact wrong:
Chanti,
Vanna, Chhork, Rosa, Chita and baby Srey Ka did have a house to live in at the
time – as attested by footage I shot at the time of the family in the house on
the very day that Rosa and Chita went to stay at the She Rescue Home.
11
days later, on 11th August, Rebecca Brewer wrote in an email to me:
“Rosa and Chita stay with us until they are 18 or
until she can provide a safe environment for them, as defined by LICADHO and
the Ministry of Social Affairs.”
On the basis of what legal agreement did Rebecca
Brewer make this statement? The 31st July 2008 ‘contract’ the church
had entered into with Chanti? Or had Citipointe, by 11th August 2008,
entered into a separate legally binding agreement with the Department of
Foreign Affairs? If so, why was Chanti not consulted in the drawing up of this
agreement, why was she not even informed that such an agreement existed and
why, close to five years later, is it still impossible for her to acquire a
copy of this agreement? Surely it is the fundamental right of any parent
anywhere in the world, if their children are removed from their care, to be
informed as to why this radical action has been deemed necessary?
Some
obvious questions arise:
(1)
Do LICADHO and Chab Dai believe that this 31st July 2008 document is
a legally binding contract between Chanti and Citipointe church?
(2)
Do LICADHO and Chab Dai believe that this ‘contract’ gives Citipointe the right
to retain custody of Rosa and Chita until they are 18?
(3)
Do LICADHO and Chab Dai believe that this ‘contract’ gives Citipointe the right
to limit family visits to two hours per month. Or 24 hours per year? And always
with a ‘minder’ in tow?
(4)
Do LICADHO and Chab Dai believe that this ‘contract’ gives Citipointe the right
to refuse to allow Rosa and Chita the right to attend any Buddhist ceremonies
at all with their Buddhist family?
(5)
Do LICADHO and Chab Dai believe that this ‘contract’ gives Citipointe the right
to refuse to allow Rosa and Chita the right to attend or take part in any
family celebrations – including two weddings this past month?
These
are not rhetorical questions. However, it is possible that the above questions
should be asked in relation to the agreement that Citipointe claims it entered
into with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If such an agreement exists it must
have been reached between 31st July and 11th August 2008.
(6)
Do LICADHO and Chab Dai believe that Chanti has a right to be provided with a
copy of the contract or legally binding agreement that Citipointe church
entered into with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
(7)
Do LICADHO and Chab Dai believe it was fair or appropriate that this agreement
was entered into without Chanti’s knowledge and without her being informed as
to why such an agreement was deemed to be necessary; without an opportunity to
address the content of the agreement and to correct any factual errors that
might have been contained in it? The most obvious factual error may well be
that Rosa and Chita were victims or Human Trafficking!
(8)
Do LICADHO and Chab Dai believe that Chanti has a right to be provided with a
copy of the contract or legally binding agreement that Citipointe church
entered into with the Ministry of Social Affairs that give the church the legal
right to hold the girls for close to five years against the express wishes of
the parents?
(9)
Do LICADHO and Chab Dai believe it appropriate that in March 2013, close to
five years after the removal of her children, that Chanti has still not been informed why Rosa
and Chita were removed from her care or been provided with any information at
all regarding what she must do to have her children returned to her care?
In
2008 Chab Dai endorsed Citipointe’s actions by telling me that Citipointe ran a
good program.
(10)
Does Chab Dai still believe that Citipointe is running a good program?
In
2008 Citipointe led Chanti to believe that she was, with the 31st
March document, entering into a short term agreement with LICADHO – an
organization Chanti knew of and trusted. To this day, Chanti believes that the
contract she signed with her thumb print on 21st July 2008 was with
LICADHO.
(11)
Will LICADHO clarify whether or not the organization had anything to do with
the drawing up of this document?
I
believe that these are legitimate questions to ask of both Chab Dai and LICADHO
and would appreciate if both Chanti and I (as her advocate) could be provided
with answers.
If, on 11th August Citipointe had no legal
right to be holding Rosa and Chita against their mother’s wishes (ie, no
legally binding contract) Rebecca Brewer and Leigh Ramsay were in breach of
Cambodia’s:
Law on Suppression of Human
Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation
Article 8:Definition of
Unlawful Removal
The act of unlawful removal
in this act shall mean to:
1)
Remove a person from his/her current place of residence to a place under
the actor’s or a third persons 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 to take a minor person under general custody or
curatorship or legal custody away from
the legal custody of the parents, care taker or guardian.
Article 9: Unlawful removal,
inter alia, of Minor
A person who unlawfully removes a minor or a person under general custody or curatorship or legal
custody shall be punished with
imprisonment for 2 to 5 years.
The italics are mine and are a neat
summary of the way in which Chanti and Chhork’s daughters, Rosa and Chita, were
removed from their care.
Of course, it may be that Citipointe
can produce the contracts or agreements it has with ‘Foreign Affairs’ and
‘Social Affairs’ – in which case the church is not guilty of the unlawful removal
of a minor. However, the question still remains: Why, this past four and more
years, has Citipointe refused every request from Chanti and myself that it
produce the legal documents in question. This shows a total lack of regard for
the human rights of Chanti and her husband Chhork.
(12) Are Chab Dai and LICADHO concerned about the legal status of
Citipointe’s custody of Rosa and Chita?
(13) Are Chab Dai and LICADHO
concerned that Chanti has never, to this day, been provided with either an
explanation as to why her daughters were removed or with documents that
demonstrate that this removal was legal?
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment