Hagar's lack of transparency raises (or should raise!) questions

Lindsay Murdoch’s recent ‘Orphanages on List of Shame’ raises questions about  ‘First Bloke’ Tim Mathieson's ‘Freedom Ride’ this weekend to “support children in Cambodia who have survived modern day slavery and severe human rights abuse.”

The money raised for Mathieson’s celebrity motor bike ride from Kirribilly House to The Lodge will go to Hagar  - an Australian NGO supported by AusAID funding committed to do “whatever it takes  
for as long as it takes 
to restore a broken life”.

Similar mission statements can be found on the websites of NGOs that have recently been charged with or are under investigation for human rights abuses of the children in their care in Cambodia. AusAID’s position is unequivocal:

“The Australian government is committed to improving the transparency of the Australian aid program…The Australian public and the recipients of Australian aid have a right to know that Australian aid funds are spent effectively, achieve real results and help people to overcome poverty….With good information, tax payers and aid recipients can hold governments accountable…”

As a recipient of AusAID would be happy answering some questions. In the interests of transparency and full disclosure, some context is in order also.

In the course of making my documentary, ‘Chanti’s World’ I filmed with a young woman, whom I shall call Srey, who spent four years in the Hagar’s care, from age 15 to 19. Srey’s experiences, as recounted for my camera, are at odds with what Hagar claims, on its website, to be the NGO’s policies. In order than ‘Chanti’s World’ be factually accurate, it was imperative that I check with Hagar to find out if what Srey has told me could possibly be true. In my first letter to Hagar I wrote:

“I have a quite definitive statement from a former Hagar resident that despite have never been a victim of Human Trafficking or at risk of being trafficked by her parents she was allowed to see her parents only once a year for 2 hours. Is this possible in terms of Hagar policy? She claims that the two hours per year visitation right applied to all of the girls she was in care with. Is this possible or, to be more precise, is it Hagar policy that such visits are severely limited?”

Given Hagar’s commitment to family re-integration, it is difficult to reconcile this young woman’s account of her experiences as a client of Hagar with the NGO’s official policy. Hagar’s response did not quite answer my question:

“Until reintegration happens Hagar facilitates interaction with family especially around Cambodian cultural and religious holidays. Again, this interaction would vary greatly depending on each individual child’s situation.”

In addition to this I was supplied with a blizzard of statistics regarding Hagar’s activities. I responded with:

It is difficult to know, from the different statistics you have quoted in your letter, which category the young woman I have written about fits into. Regardless of which category, my question remains:

“Is it possible that the young woman in question’s access to her family could have been limited to 2 hours per annum?”

I have asked this question of Hagar three times now and have been unable to get an answer. The removal of Srey from her job selling cheap photocopied books to tourists  (the reason why she was considered to be ‘at risk’) necessitated that her younger sisters (one aged five at the time) step in and fill the family income hole left by Srey’s having been ‘rescued’ by Hagar. (Nothing is simple in Cambodia or as it might seem to be. ‘Rescuing’ kids ‘at risk’ can often lead to younger siblings being obliged to fill their shoes to keep food on the family table.)

Another question:

“This young woman claims that Hagar gave her no choice but to take part in Citipointe church activities. Is this possible? Indeed, is it the case that all in Hagar’s care must take part in Christian activities despite their being Buddhists?”

I have asked this question three times also but have received no answer to it. I know that Srey (whom I have known for close to 18 years) had no choice but to attend Citipointe church services but have, at present, only her word that the same applied for all Hagar ‘clients’.  My final question:

“This young woman claims that when she reached the age of 19 she was sent back into the world with nothing other than a certainly facility with the English language and a 20 pound bag of rice and that since that time Hagar has shown no interest at all in her welfare. Is this possible?”

With answers to none of my questions I am, as a filmmaker, confronted with the choice of either letting Srey’s assertions regarding Hagar go unchallenged or of not including them in  ‘Chanti’s World’ in case what she has told me is inaccurate or untrue. But if untrue, why does Hagar not simply refute what Srey has told me?

It is to be hoped that the media, this weekend, raises questions such as my own about how the money Tim Mathieson’s ‘Freedom Ride’ raises will be spent by Hagar.