Senator, the Hon Bob Carr
Foreign Minister
R.G. Casey Building
John McEwen Crescent
Barton
ACT 0221 Australia
11th March 2013
Dear Senator Carr
This letter concerns a poor Cambodian
family whose two eldest daughters were ‘stolen’ by an Australian-run NGO in
Phnom Penh close to five years ago. The NGO, Citipointe church, based in
Brisbane, refuses to return the girls – Rosa, aged 11 and Chita, aged 10 - to
their family’s care, in contravention of UNICEF’S ‘Convention on the Rights of
the Child’) and despite multiple requests
by the parents (Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork) that the church do so.
I have attempted, without success, to
raise this matter with Australia’s Ambassador to Cambodia, Penny Richards, in
five letters - hand delivered by myself to the Australian Embassy in Phnom
Penh, on 20th, 22nd, 26th, 28th Feb. and 4th March. Ambassador Richards
has not acknowledged receipt of any of my letters. It is for this reason that I
am writing to you - in the hope that, as Foreign Minister, you will be either able to provide me with answers to my
questions and those of Yem Chanthy (whom I know as Chanti) or inform me that
the illegal removal of Chanti’s children from their family in 2008 by an
Australian-based NGO is not a matter in which the Department of Foreign Affairs
can intervene or take an interest.
The first of my letters to Ambassador
Richards can be found at:
My subsequent letters to Ms Richards
can also be found on my blog, along with my letters to various other parties
whom I believe should have an interest in the right of Rosa and Chita (to quote
the Convention on the Rights of the Child) “to
participate fully in family, cultural and social life.”
On my blog can also be found my
response to Citipointe’s Pastor Mulheran’s not-so-thinly-veiled threats to have
me ‘forcibly removed’, arrested, jailed and banned from coming to Cambodia.
Having filmed the forcible and illegal removal of the community living adjacent
to the (then) new Australian Embassy I have had some first hand experience of
what ‘forcible’ means in a Cambodian context. Forcible removals of Cambodians
from their homes and land is an almost daily occurrence in Cambodia.
That Pastor Mulheran believes that he
can pick up the phone and request of the relevant Cambodian Government Minister
that I be ‘forcibly removed’ and put in jail speaks volumes of Citipointe
church’s modus operandi and the way in which the concept of ‘civil society’
manifests itself in Cambodia. The rich and powerful of all nationalities, can
break the law with impunity in Cambodia.
My several attempts to raise the
matter of the illegal removal of Yem Chanty’s daughters with the previous
Australian Ambassador to Cambodia (along with the impending illegal removal of
the Australian Embassy’s neighbours) were ignored. When I refused to accept
silence as an appropriate response, my subsequent letters and emails were
responded to by DFAT spin doctors who answered none of my questions but merely directed
me to the DFAT website. I made a video of this illegal eviction – carried out
in the total absence of even the mildest protest from the Australian Embassy
until five hours before the eviction itself. My video (Losing Ground - Group 78 Eviction
- Part 1) can be found online at:
I have enclosed a photocopy of a
letter written by the Commune Chief of the village in which (Yem Chanthy and
Both Chhork) own a home. It speaks for itself of the determination of Chanti
and Chhork to have their daughters returned to them – five years after their
illegal removal, and to be supplied with evidence of the legality of Citipointe
church’s actions. A translation of the letter to Ith Sam Heng, Cambodia’s Minister
of Social Affairs, reads as follows:
I am writing on behalf of
Yem Chanthy and her husband Both Chhork and their two daughters – Rosa and
Chita.
Rosa and Chita live in
Citipointe church’s She Rescue Home in Phnom Penh. Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork
have asked Citipointe church many times in the past four years to return their
daughters to their care. They are not victims of Human Trafficking. They went
to stay with the She Rescue Home in 2008 when Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork had
financial difficulties and were very poor. In Nov 2008 they were not poor. They
had two businesses and were earning money but Citipointe church refused to
return Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork’s daughters.
Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork
now own a house in Prey Veng and a tuk tuk and can I can afford to take care of
all of their children. I request on their behalf that Rosa and Chita be
released back into the custody of their parents.
Could you please also
provide me with copies of the contracts that Citipointe church made with the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Social Affairs that allowed the
church to hold Rosa and Chita this long period of time. I have requested copies
of these contracts but Citipointe church as refused to supply them.
Thank you Minister Ith Sam
Heng.
Since Nov 2008 Citipointe has
refused to provide the parents of Rosa and Chita (Chanti and Chhork) with
copies of any contract or other agreement the church has entered into
with the Ministries of Foreign or Social Affairs that give Citipointe the right
to retain custody of the girls and to ignore the frequent requests of the
parents that they be returned to the care of the family. Chanti and Chhork have
no idea why their children were forcibly removed by an Australian church; why,
close to five years later, they remain in the care of an Australian-based
Christian NGO or what they must do to have their children returned to the
family.
The Cambodian Ministry of Social
Affairs likewise refuses to provide Chanti and Chhork with a reason why the
girls were removed from their care, with copies of any contractual agreements
the Ministry has entered into with Citipointe church or any information at all
regarding what then parents must do to get Rosa and Chita back.
It would seem, from Pastor Mulheran’s
21st Feb letter to myself (in which he threatens to have me ‘forcibly removed’)
that some part of the justification for not returning Rosa and Chita to the
care of their parents (or perhaps the entire justification) resides in Rosa and
Chits being ‘deemed’ by the church and the Ministry of Social Affairs to be
victims of Human Trafficking. Citipointe knows, as does the Ministry of Social
Affairs, that the girls were not and never have been victims of Human
Trafficking. Indeed, it is only recently that Citipointe has introduced the
‘Human Trafficking’ element to the church’s seemingly never-ending reasons not
to release Rosa and Chita back into the care of their family. That Citipointe
church can simply wave its magic wand and turn two girls into ‘victims of Human
Trafficking’ speaks for itself of the church’s clutching at straws to justify
its actions.
It is telling that neither Citipointe
church nor a representative of the Ministry of Social Affairs has visited the
villages of either Chanti’s or Chhork’s families (20 minutes part in Prey Veng
province) to talk with their respective Commune Chiefs. It is telling also that
no representative of the Ministry of Social Affairs has ever visited the
current home of Chanti and Chhork (or any of their previous homes this
past five years) to make an assessment regarding the suitability of the living conditions
for Rosa and Chita. As my documentary reveals the family home is far superior
in every respect to the homes that 80% of Cambodians live in.
Chanti and Chhork now own a tuk tuk
(a three wheeled taxi) and have a regular (if modest) income. Chanti and her
mother Vanna supplement the family income with jobs that involve making and
selling artifacts for tourists. And the family is the owner of a home in the
village of Chhork’s family in Prey Veng – a village in which many members of Chhork’s
extended family live. (Chhork is one of 15 brothers and sisters). Twenty
minutes up the road is the village in which Chanti’s mother Vanna’s extended
family lives. Again, it is telling that in the close to five years that Rosa
and Chita have been living in the She Rescue Home, Citipointe has refused every
request made by Chanti and Chhork that the girls be able to visit their two
extended families in Prey Veng – a mere two hour drive from Phnom Penh – or to
take part in any Buddhist or family celebrations.
By Cambodian standards Chanti and
Chhork’s family could now be characterized as lower middle class – struggling
to keep their heads above water financially, as is the case for the bulk of
Cambodian families. And yet Citipointe church refuses to return the two eldest daughters
of the family to the care of the family. A question:
Do you, as
Foreign Minister, have the moral authority to request that Citipointe church
present Chanti, Chhork and DFAT with copies of any and all contracts or
agreements that give the church the legal right to hold Rosa and Chita against
the wishes of their parents?
On 13th Feb 2008, ten Prime Minister
Kevin Rudd said the following in his apology speech to the ‘Stolen Generations’
of Australian Aboriginals.
We reflect in
particular on the mistreatment of those who were stolen generations - this
blemished chapter in our nation's history. The time has now come for the nation
to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past
and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise for the laws
and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted
profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians. We apologise
especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
from their families, their communities and their country. For the pain,
suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their
families left behind, we say sorry. To the mothers and the fathers, the
brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we
say sorry.”
In ten or twenty years time will the then
Prime Minister of Australia be issuing a similar apology to the children and
parents of Cambodian families broken up by NGOs such as Citipointe’s ‘She Rescue
Home’? Why, in 2013, are Australian NGOs able to export the thoroughly
discredited form of social engineering that led to the ‘Stolen Generation’
apology to third world countries – in some cases whilst in receipt of funding
from AusAID? Again I ask, do you as Foreign Minister have the moral authority
to at least publicly denounce this practice?
In Nov 2012, whilst in Phnom Penh, Prime
Minister Julia Gillard announced that Australia would (I am quoting a
press release here):
“…fund a $50 million Asia-Asia
Program to combat Trafficking in
Persons, which will reduce
trafficking in persons by strengthening
criminal justice systems in
Cambodia….Investigators and prosecutors
will be supported to
increase convictions and reduce opportunities for
trafficking, while victims
of trafficking will be supported through
the criminal justice system.
Trafficking in persons is a global issue
that ruins the lives of its
victims and profoundly affects their
families and communities…”
Whilst trafficking takes many forms,
it is the headline-grabbing manifestations that capture the attention of the
media – particularly young girls who have been trafficked for the purposes of
sexual exploitation. There are less headline grabbing forms of trafficking, however
– such as the one that Chanti and her daughters Rosa and Chita have fallen
victim to. I need not recount, in detail, how it was that Citipointe church used
a combination of bribes, deceit and outright lies to acquire custody of Rosa
and Chita. This is well documented in my letters to Ambassador Richards and
documented in full on my blog:
There is a thriving orphanage
industry in Cambodia – not because there is a glut of orphans (there isn’t) but
because running an orphanage or a rescue centre for victims of Human
Trafficking is a great draw card for non government organizations wishing to
cajole members of the donor pubic into opening their hearts and wallets. The
problem is, in Cambodia in 2013, that roughly 75% of orphans living in
orphanages are not orphans! They have at least one living parent but he or she
is poor. Likewise, only 16 % of the
girls living in the She Rescue Home are (by church’s own admission) actual victims
of Human Trafficking. However, by a verbal sleight of hand the church can (and
does) present the 84% that are not
victims of Human Trafficking as being victims of Human Trafficking. This is
very effective fund-raising ploy but a totally dishonest one.
Consider the following quote from
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 curatoship 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.
I would like to finish with a quote from the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Australia is a signatory:
Built
on varied legal systems and cultural traditions, the Convention is a
universally agreed set of non-negotiable standards and obligations. These
basic standards—also called human rights—set minimum entitlements and freedoms
that should be respected by governments…. It spells out the basic human rights
that children everywhere have: the right to survival; to develop to the
fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to
participate fully in family, cultural and social life.
Rosa and Chita have been denied, by Citipointe
church, the right “to participate fully in family, cultural
and social life”. They have been denied to right to participate in any way at all
in family, cultural and social life – other, that is, than a few hours of
supervised visits each month – amounting to around 24 hours per annum.
yours sincerely
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment