Ith Sam Heng
Ministry of Social Affairs, Veteran
and Youth Rehabilitation
#788, Monivong Blvd.
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
10th April 2013
Dear Minister
I am writing again on behalf of Yem Chanthy and her husband Both
Chhork and their two daughters – Rosa and Chita.
Please excuse me for writing in English but I am not currently
in a position to have this letter translated into Khmer.
I was pleased to learn, over the past couple of weeks, that
MOSAVY is taking strong action to close down illegal ‘orphanages’ and those
that do not conform to the highest possible standards in their caring for
Cambodian children.
In light of this admirable initiative on the part of your
ministry I would like to present the following for your consideration. In
relation to Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork’s daughters, Rosa and Chita, the key
issues can be boiled down to one simply question:
Did Citipointe church, in the 15 months prior to entering into
an agreement with MOSAVY in late 2009 regarding custody of Rosa and Chita, have
a legal right to be holding the girls against the express wishes of their
parents Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork?
Regardless of Citipointe’s answer to this question the church
should, within 24 hours, be able to produce documentary evidence of the
legality of its actions. If the church cannot do so certain questions need to be
asked. If the church can provide evidence of the legality of its actions a
quite different set of questions need to be asked such that a just and
appropriate outcome is to be found for Rosa and Chita.
In an attempt to simplify what might seem, at first glance, a
complicated matter, I have written below, in point form, a time-line with the
significant events on it:
In June 2008 Yem Chanthy had a
conversation with a representative of Citipointe church, based in Brisbane,
Pastor Leigh Ramsay. Pastor Ramsay asked Yem Chanthy if she would like some
help from the church to tide her over family over whilst in the midst of a
financial crisis – brought on, in part, by the birth of her third daughter. Yem
Chanthy was, at the time, living in a one bedroom apartment in Phnom Penh with her husband Both Chhork,
her two daughters – Rosa (aged 6), Chita (aged 5) and her new baby Srey Ka.
Both Chhork was step-father to Rosa and the biological father of Chita (also
known as Srey Mal). The family’s poverty
was such that after the birth of Srey Ka Yem Chanty was begging on the streets
of Phnom Penh.
- Later in June 2008 Yem Chanthy
and Both Chhork spoke with James Ricketson about the offer that had been made
by Citipointe church. Yem Chanthy had known James Ricketson, a filmmaker, since
1995. James Ricketson also spoke twice with representatives of Citipointe about
the church’s offer of assistance.
- On 31st July 2008,
Yem Chanthy and her mother, Chab Vanna, were asked by a representative of
Citipointe church to place their thumb prints on a document. Yem Chanthy and
Chab Vanna, both of them illiterate, were told that this document gave the
church permission to take care of Rosa and Chita until Yem Chanthy and Both
Chhork’s financial situation improved sufficiently such that the girls could be
reunited with their family. Both Chhork was not asked to sign this document.
I have already provided your
office with a colour photocopy of this 31st, July 2008 document and,
on a separate page, an English translation of it. Please note that it is not
countersigned by any member of Citipointe church.
A
witness to the signing of this 31st July 2008 document identified
herself as working for LICADHO (a human rights organization) but did not
provide a witness signiature. (Since Nov 2008 LICADHO has refused to either confirm
or deny that a representative of LICADHO was present for the signing of this
document. To this day, Yem Chanty believes that the agreement she had entered
into on 31st July was with LICADHO. As a result of having lived most
of her life on the streets of Phnom Penh Yem Chanthy was familiar with the
human rights work done by LICADHO and trusted the person presented to her as a
LICADHO employee.)
- On 11th August 2008 Rebecca
Brewer, a representative of Citipoine church wrote, in an email to James
Ricketson, that Rosa and Chita would reside at the She Rescue Home until they
were 18 years old. The precise words used by Rebecca Brewer were: (“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.”)
Several
requests made by James Ricketson to Citipointe, LICADHO and the Ministry of
Social Affairs to be provided with these ‘definitions’ yielded no results. Neither
LICADHO nor the Ministry of Social Affairs have been able to provide Ricketson
with a ‘definition’ of a ‘safe environment’ this past four and a half years.)
- Between August 2008 and November 2008 Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork requested on several occasions that their
daughters be returned to their family – their financial fortunes having turned
around. Citipointe refused to do so – citing the 31st July 2008
document as evidence that Yem Chanthy had entered into a contractual agreement
that gave the church the right to remain as legal guardians of Rosa and Chita
until they were 18 years old.
- In
November 2008 James Ricketson had the 31st July 2008 ‘contract’
translated from Khmer into English. It was discovered that the document
contained no reference to Citipointe retaining custody of Rosa and Chita until
they were 18 years old. It was discovered also that the ‘contract’ did not
contain any reference to the visitation rights of Yem Chanty and Both Chhok to
their daughters – despite Citipointe church having claimed, in writing, that it
did. In a telephone conversation Pastor Brian Mulheran told James Ricketson
that Citipointe church was “obliged to abide by its membership with Chab Dai
and its contractual relationship with LICADHO to restrict Chanti’s and Vanna’s
access to Rosa and Srey Mal to two hours of supervised visit every two week and
now, owing to the recent incident, to
two hours every month.” The ‘recent incident’ was Yem Chanthy ‘kidnapping’ Rosa
from the She Rescue Home when she and Both Chhork realized that Citipointe
church had no intention of abiding by the terms of the agreement they (along
with James Ricketson) believed they had entered into with the church. (There is
abundant evidence in support of the proposition that Yem Chanthy, Both Chhork
and James Ricketson were mislead by Citipointe in relation to the church’s
offer to assist the family on a short term basis.)
It
was discovered also that the 31st July 2008 ‘contract’ had not been
signed by any representative of Citipointe church. Cambodian and Australian lawyers have
expressed the opinion, in very forceful terms, that the 31st July
2008 document did not constitute a legally binding contract between Yem Chanthy
and Citipointe giving the church any of the rights it claimed to both Yem
Chanthy and James Ricketson that it did.
- Fifteen months later the Ministry of Social Affairs provided the
following explanation as to why Citipointe had not entered into a contractual
agreement with the ministry until late 2009:
1)
For the SHE Rescue project, bring the children under the control and protection
before signing the agreement was possible because the organization was already
registered with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation
already.
2)
For the SHE resuce project, according to the agreement made with the Ministry
of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation, the organization has
projected to help victims of human trafficking and sex trade as well as families
which fall so deep in poverty. After questioning directly, the ministry
believes that Rosa must have been in any of the above categories.
The ‘must have been’ in italics (mine) suggests
that no-one from MOSAVY actually checked to see which category Rosa fell into
but took Citipointe’s word for it. Note thast no reference is made to
Chita! Citipointe has recently taken to
referring to Rosa and Chita as ‘victims of Human Trafficking’. (James Ricketson
was filming at the time that Rosa and Chita were recruited by Citipointe in
June 2008, along with the daughters of other poor families, and can provide
audio-visual evidence that Rosa and Chita were not and never have been ‘victims
of Human Trafficking.’)
- Between 31st July
2008 and November 2008 (and for the following 15 months) Citipointe church had,
by its own admission, entered into no form of agreement with MOSAVY regarding
the church’s continued custody of Rosa and Chita. During this 15 months Citipointe
repeatedly refused to return Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork’s daughters to them.
- It is James Ricketson’s belief
that the 31st. July 2008 document signed by Yem Chanthy and Chab
Vanna did not constitute a legally binding contract giving Citipointe church
the right to retain custody of Rosa and Chita contrary to the express wishes of
their parents Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork. In the absence of any other contract
or agreement with the relevant Cambodian government department (the Ministries
of Foreign and Asocial Affairs) Citipointe was guilty during this fifteen month
period, of breaching Cambodia’s “Law on
Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation” – the relevant part
of which, as you know, reads:
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.
James Ricketson has attempted, on
many occasions this past four and a half years, to get Citipointe church to
provide Yem Chanthy with copies of any and all contracts or agreements relating
to the church’s continuing custody of Rosa and Chita.
These contracts or agreements are
important for two reasons: (1) to demonstrate to Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork
that Citipointe had a legal right, between 31st July and November
2008 to retain custody of their daughters and (2) to discover what they needed
to do, as parents, to demonstrate to the Ministry of Social Affairs what
constitutes a ‘safe environment.’ (In
April 2013, Both Chhork and Yem Chanthy own their own home in a village in the
province of Prey Veng and Both Chhork earns a regular income driving a tuk tuk.
Despite the obvious ‘safety’ of the home environment and the ability of Both
Chhork and Yem Chanthy to support their family, Citipointe refuses to return
Rosa and Chita to the care of their family.)
Both Citipointe and the Ministry of
Social Affairs refuse to provide Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork with copies of any agreements
or contracts that Citipointe has entered into with either the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs or the Ministry of Social Affairs.
- James Ricketson’s suggestion
that Citipointe was in breach of Cambodia’s “Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation “actions in 2008 in
removing Rosa and Chita from their parents care is just that – a suggestion.
The only way that this ‘suggestion’ can be tested is for Citipointe church to
provide Yem Chanthy and James Ricketson (her advocate) with copies of the
contracts and agreements that the church claims to have with the Ministries of
Foreign and Social Affairs.
If necessary, all the facts
presented in this ‘tme line’ can be backed up with verifiable evidence.
I request of you, Minister, that
you instruct Citipointe church to immediately
provide yourself, along with Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork, with copies of
all documents pertaining to the legality of Citipointe’s actions in 2008 and
2009 in retaining custody of Rosa and Chita against their parent’s wishes.
If Yem Chanty and Both Chhork are
not able to acquire these documents through your ministry I will be left with
no option but to seek to obtain them by asking the Australian Federal Police to
investigate, under Australian law, the alleged illegal removal of Rosa and
Chita from their parents home in 2008.
best wishes
James
Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment