An open letter to the Cambodia Daily and the Phnom Penh Post re 'orphanages' and NGOs 'rescuing' children from their poor families!

Dear Cambodia Daily and Phnom Penh Post

Since 2004 the number of children living in orphanages in Romania has dropped by close to 75%.

During the same 9 years the number of orphans in Cambodia has risen by roughly 75%.

Why is this?

In Rwanda, a country that has suffered a more recent genocide than Cambodia,  the number of orphanages has declined from over 400 five years ago to only 33 in 2012.

Given that only 25% of the children in Cambodian ‘orphanages’ are actually orphans, why are there close to 300 orphanages in Cambodia?

The Rwandan government has promised to close all orphanages in the country by 2014. Why is the Cambodian government doing nothing to close orphanages  nd see the children in them returned to their families and communities?

Are some, or perhaps many, of these Cambodian ‘orphanages’ in fact lucrative businesses that have been set up to by unscrupulous NGOs primarily to make money through donations and sponsorships?

Is there any English language newspaper in Cambodia prepared to ask such questions or are both the Cambodia Daily and the Phnom Penh Post terrified of being sued by NGOs merely for asking them?

Given that studies by the World Bank and Save the Children (amongst others) reveal that orphanages cost between 6 and 10 times as much as it costs to support a child within a family, why are NGOs not helping poor children within a family and community context?  

How many Cambodian children have no uncles, aunts, cousins or others in their extended families or village who could take care of them if they received assistance from NGOs?

Since 2000 American  academics have kept track of 136 children from orphanages in Romania. They have found that the IQ levels of children who remain in large institutions are lower than those put in foster care. Both groups had lower scores than those who were not institutionalized at all. This is but one of the studies that confirm the deleterious effects of institutional living on children.

Given that even the best NGOs, running the most caring of institutions and with the very best of intentions, could assist between 6 and 10 times as many poor kids in a family and community context why is it that they are so wedded to an institutional model that has been proven to be damaging to children?

Is it a matter of concern to the NGO community that some of its members are engaged in human rights abuses in the way the deception they practice to remove children from their families, in the way they alienate the kids from their families, culture and religion? Is it a matter of concern to the English language media in Cambodia? If so, why is there virtually no investigative journalism that seeks to get answers to questions of the kind being raised here?

Whose needs are being met when well-meaning NGOs set up and run ‘orphanages’ and refuges for ‘victims of human trafficking’? The needs of the children and their families or the needs of NGOs to feel wanted, loved, to ‘making a difference’, to be seen by others as being compassionate, generous, kind-hearted and an all around ‘good person’ or, in the case of the most unscrupulous, to make a quick and easy buck?

How many expatriate NGOs who make their living and get a boost to their self-esteem  raising the children of poor Cambodian families in institutions have ever wondered how they would feel if, as a result of their own poverty, they were denied the opportunity to bring their own children up? How many expatriate NGOs with children would be happy to have their visiting rights to their kids limited to 2 hours per month or, in some cases, to 2 hours per annum? How many expatriate NGOs with children would want to see their children brought up with a different set of religious beliefs to the ones practiced by the NGOs themselves. Imagine, as a Christian, (for Christian NGOs reading this) if your poverty left you with little or no choice but to seek the help of a Buddhist NGO so that your children could eat, receive medical attention when ill and get a halfway decent education. How would you feel if the Buddhist NGO then refused to allow your child to take part in Christian celebrations but instead inculcated them with Buddhist beliefs?  

Is it possible for an NGO to remove children (and in particular, girls) from their families because the NGO ‘believes’ that the child is ‘at risk’? If so, does the Cambodian Ministry of Social Affairs conduct any investigation itself to determine whether the child is genuinely ‘at risk’ or has been defined as such by an NGO wishing to recruit from poor families ‘victims’ that it can then use to raise money through donations and sponsorships? And, when money has been so raised, how much of it is used to help the very poor families from which these children come to lift themselves out of dire poverty and dependence on NGOs and provide them with the wherewithal to be self-sufficient and are so able to take care of their own children?

Does the Ministry of Social Affairs adequately monitor the activities of NGOs running ‘orphanages’ and refuges that have ostensibly been set up to rescue ‘victims of human trafficking’? If not, why not?

Are questions such as these raised and discussed within the NGO community? Or does a conspiracy of silence prevail because for a large number of NGOs caring for ‘orphans’ and ‘rescuing victims of human trafficking’ provide them not just with their bread and butter but with a boos to their egos and the illusion that they are ‘good’ people making a positive contribution to improving the lot of poor Cambodians? If poverty alleviation is the goal of so many NGOs why is it that so many of them are concerned primarily with the poverty of the children and not with the parents?

Why do NGOs such as Citipointe church’s SHE refuge go unchallenged by the English speaking media in Cambodia when they deceive materially poor parents into giving up their daughters on a short term basis, keep them for years on end (regardless of the parents’ wishes) and advertise them as ‘victims of human trafficking’?

If there is no debate within the NGO community about the efficacy of the work done by ‘orphanages’ and ‘rescue centres’ (and I see little evidence of it) why do the Cambodia Daily and the Phnom Penh Post not start such a debate? Surely it is one of the important roles of the media to raise questions such as these, to foster dialogue and debate and to seek answers from those NGOs who formulate policy which, regardless of their good intentions, results in the breaking up of families and the alienating of Cambodian kids from their families, religion and culture?

Who in Cambodia, in the interests of transparency, accountability and safe-guarding the human rights of ‘orphans’ and their parents is going seek answers to such questions and hold unscrupulous NGOs responsible for their actions?

If the Cambodia Daily and the Phnom Penh Post are not going to ask the questions that need to be asked, who will?

Citipointe church a law unto itself – unaccountable for its actions, lacking in transparency and free to practice human rights abuses with impunity.

 Leigh Ramsay

322 Wecker Road

Carindale

QLD 4152                                                                               

21^st  August 2013

Dear Leigh

Again, it comes as no surprise that you have not responded to my letter of 8^th August. You have no respect whatsoever for the basic principles of transparency and accountability when it comes to Citipointe church’s dealings with Chanti and Chhork. You have no respect for their human rights or those of their daughters Rosa and Chita. You removed these children illegally from the care of their parents in mid 2008 using a sham ‘contract’ (a fact acknowledged by everyone who reads it) that you told Chanti she must sign. Being illiterate, Chanti could not read the document and had no knowledge of its contents other than what she was told.

Citipointe informed Chanti that the other person present when she applied her thumb print to the 31^st July 2008 ‘contract’ was from LICADHO. Indeed, on several occasions in 2008 your staff (in emails and telephone conversations) referred to the removal of Rosa and Chita from the family as having the blessing of LICADHO; that it was LICADHO who insisted that Chanti’s visitation rights be limited from 2 hours every two weeks to two hours per month. Several times your staff said that the way in which the removal took place was in accordance with guidelines laid down by LICADHO and Chab Dai.

LICADHO, for five years now, has refused to either confirm nor deny that it was involved in the removal of Rosa and Chita from their parent’s care or that it was  LICADHO’S idea that a mothers visiting rights to her children be limited to 24 hours per year.

Whilst it is clear from the sham 31^st. July 2008 document that Chanti’s reason for seeking assistance from Citipointe was poverty, Citipointe later sought to justify its action in keeping Rosa and Chita contrary to their parents express wishes by re-defining the girls as ‘victims of human trafficking.’ As you know, this is a lie. Rosa and Chita were never trafficked and never in danger of being trafficked. Their parents sought short term relief from Citipointe when in the midst of a serious financial crisis and when this crisis had passed, in Nov of 2008, asked for their daughters to be returned to them. Citipointe refused and continues, in August 2013, to do so.

Today, Chanti and Chhork are both land and home owners. They are living close to self-sufficient lives in a village where a substantial number of members of Chhork’s extended family lives. And yet Citipointe continues to refuse to release the girls back into the care of the family. You provide no reason for this. The Ministry of Social Affairs provides no reason for this and clearly has no interest in the legality of Citipointe’s actions in removing the girls in the first place or in seeing them returned to their family. In short, Citipointe is free to do whatever it likes with the girls in its care and there is no-one, no body, no organization, no government department, that will hold the church accountable. You can raise as much money from sponsors and donors as you like in your exploitation of Rosa and Chita as ‘victims of human trafficking’ and give none of the money raised in this deceitful way to help the family.

I am copying this letter to LICADHO and Chab Dai (as I have done all of my correspondence) in the hope that one or both organizations will put some pressure on you to provide documents demonstrating that the church’s removal of Rosa and Chita in mid 2008 was legal. As you know, the ‘contract’ you got Chanti to sign on 31^st. July 2008 (not countersigned by anyone from your church or by a witness) is a worthless document from a legal point of view.  It provides Citipointe with none of the rights that the church claimed, to both Chanti and myself, that it did back in 2008.

From 31^st July 2008 and for the following 15 months your church effectively, from a legal point of view, held Rosa and Chita as kidnap victims – severely limiting the parents access to them and refusing Chanti’s and Chhork’s every request that they be released back into their care. As I have been asking for close to five years now, if this statement is untrue, prove to Chab Dai, to LICADHO, to  Chanti, Chhork and myself  (Chanti’s legally appointed advocate) that it is untrue by producing whatever contract or other legal document the church has which reveals the legality of Citipointe’s actions in mid 2008.

After five years Chanti’s heart continues to break each and every time you promise to release the girls back into hers and Chhork’s care and then renege on that promise. And after five years my own patience has worn thin. If Rosa and Chita are not released back into the care of their parents in the next two weeks, and if Citipointe does not provide the parents, LICADHO and myself with copies of agreements and/or contracts pertaining to the legality of its actions in mid-2008, I will be left with no choice but to move to Plan B – the details of which I will keep to myself for tactical reasons.

I trust that it will not be necessary to move to Plan B and that LICADHO, at least, will insist that Citipointe (1) Prove the legality of its actions in mind 2008 in removing Rosa and Chita and (2) Explain why it is, in August 2013, that the church continues to hold Rosa and Chita against the express wishes of their parents Chanti and Chhork when they are land and home owners and have an income as secure as (indeed more secure than) the majority of Cambodians.

My last letter to you was published on my other blog – one which received around 10 times as many visitors as my Citipointe blog:

http://jamesricketson.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/brisbane-based-citipointe-church-

Chanti was in Phnom Penh yesterday with Chhork and baby Poppy. They came to visit me. Whilst they were here they received a phone call from Citipointe staff to tell them they were at Chanti and Chhork’s home in Prey Veng, with Rosa and Chita – for a visit. As has happened before, it does not occur to Citipointe to check with Chanti and Chhork to see if they are at home or if the day and time of the visit is convenient. Chhork works as a tuk tuk driver and cannot simply stop work because Citipointe arrives with his daughters unannounced. The arrogance of Citipointe church never ceases to amaze me – the lack of sensitivity, the presumption that Chanti and Chhork will always be at home and that any old time that Citipointe decides to organize a visit will be OK with them.

You should give up ‘rescuing’ the children of poor parents, Leigh, and leave the job of helping families achieve self-sufficiency to NGOs that know what they are doing and treat families with respect.

best wishes

James Ricketson

Cambodian Children's Fund # 7

Everyone pays lip service to the ideals of transparency and accountability these days – government departments, bureaucrats and, of course, NGOs.

Transparency and accountability lie at the very heart of a healthy functioning democracy so it is appropriate that all bodies (governments and NGOs alike) that exert power with the assistance of money from the public purse, should be held up as ideals. It does not always happen in reality, of course, and it is one of the roles of the media to hold all public officials accountable and to insist that they be transparent.

The same applies to the media too – members of which are also prone to playing fast and loose with the truth in order to push their own agenda. The ideals of transparency and accountability must apply to myself as much as to (in this case) the Cambodian Children’s Fund. I must not publish things that are not true or which,in the process of editing, have presented only that part of the truth that suits me. It is for this reason that I have published pretty well all of my correspondence with the Cambodian Children’s Fund. Should Scott Neeson wish to correct any errors I have made in my account of our correspondence these will be published online in full – with no editing.

Readers of this blog can make up their own minds as to whether I am being unreasonable in wishing to be put in contact with Ka, Chuan and their family or whether it is CCF that is being unreasonable.

14^th August

EMAIL TO SCOTT NEESON

Dear Scott

Two years ago, when I attempted to drop off photos to Sokayn  at CCF, I had two objectives: (1) I wanted to add an up to date coda to  the story I had shot about Sokayn and her family and (2) I wanted to fulfill my promise to the family that, in return for its generosity in allowing me into its life in the dump, I would help Ka and Chuan out financially.

Two simple objectives! 

My filming for CHANTI’S WORLD was pretty much at an end and, as it happens, the story within the story about a family living and working in the Phnom Penh dump was a small one. I anticipated that it would occupy less than five minutes of screen time.

At the time (Sept 2011) I had no reason to disbelieve anything I read on the CCF website. It seemed to me that Sokayn and Sokourn now had the best of both worlds – good nutritious food, access to a decent education, medical and dental care and so on whilst at the same time maintaining strong links with their family. I did have some reservations about the fact that CCF was doing nothing to help Ka and Chuan financially but figured that, with a tight budget, CCF had good budgetary reasons for limiting its assistance to the children only. This was before I found out that in the same year that Ka and Chuan earnt, between them $1,000 a year working in the dump, CCF received $4 million in donations. Using the roughest of all calculations this means that if CCF is taking care, say, of 1000 children, CCF received in the vicinity of $4,000 per child in donations in 2011.

When I discovered this I could not help but wonder: How much of this $4,000 (these are ballpark figures) are spent in such a way as to help Ka and Chuan retrain so that they could get jobs outside of the dump? Alternatively, if leaving the dump was not an option, what was CCF doing to see to it that Ka and Chuan and the rest of the family (including a very young baby) at least had access to clean water and nutritious food?

I did not know about the $4 million in donations at the time so questions such as these were not foremost in my mind when I turned up at CCF in Sept 2011.

It became clear within a few days of my attempt to drop photos off to Sokayn that CCF had changed its policy. Casual visitors such as myself, who had been casually visiting for years, could no longer do so. Fair enough. Rules and protocols change. I did not know of the change and there is no reason why I should have. However, as soon as it became apparent that my turning up unannounced was an innocent mistake, why did CCF not do the most obvious thing - make contact with Ka and Chuan and act as a conduit of messages between us. As I mentioned at the time, if for any reason Ka and Chuan had decided they did not want to have contact with me this would have been their decision and not one imposed, on their behalf, by CCF. This is what has occurred. Two years down the track CCF still refuses to either pass messages on to Ka and Chuan or to pass messages from them back to me. Why is this?

The only thing that has changed since Sept 2011 is that I discovered when I made contact with Ka and Chuan, despite CCFs obstructions, that CCF had not helped them start a new life in the provinces at all. You had lied to me, Scott. Why? Was it simply that you are a control freak who did not like the idea that anyone other than yourself and CCF staff might have a relationship with this family? Or was it because you did not want me (and hence my camera) to witness the conditions under which Ka and Chuan were living? I do not pretend to know the answer and it may be that I never discover it. However, it is one of the roles of documentary to ask such questions and so this is what I am doing here and what I will be doing in subsequent filming.

I will now put a good deal of effort into finding Ka and Chuan despite the obstructive position you have taken. My search for them will become part of my film. I will leave it to the audience to decide whether CCF has, this past two years, been acting in a reasonable manner in refusing to act as a conduit for messages between myself and the family.

In the interests of transparency and accountability I have started to publish, online, the bulk of my correspondence with CCF since Sept 2011. It is somewhat repetitious so I am editing it a little, but not in such a way as to misrepresent CCF’s position vis a vis putting me in contact with Ka and Chuan.

The correspondence can be found at:

http://citipointechurch.blogspot.com/2013/08/cambodian-childrens-fund-1.html

best wishes

17^th August

EMAIL TO SCOTT NEESON

Dear Scott

As an experienced filmmaker you know that there is no way that I can broadcast CHANTI'S WORLD anywhere in the world if it contains anything that is defamatory. Broadcasters have legal departments devoted to making a determination about such matters. And, of course, film producers (if they have any sense) also obtain sound legal advice before including anything in a film that could be actionable. I have been making films for 40 years and know both my rights and my responsibilities.

You will also know, as an experienced film person, that a documentary filmmaker's job is, in part, to ask the kinds of questions I have been asking of you and CCF. To not do so would be irresponsible on my part. It is also an integral part of my job to seek clarification of statements made by one party in relation to another. If A makes an observation about B it is beholden on me to check with B to make sure this observation is correct. And, if there is a discrepancy, to acknowledge in my documentary that a discrepancy exists. A says this, B says that and there is no way that the filmmaker can be sure which is providing an accurate picture of what has occurred. Unless you happen to be Michael Moore, it is not the documentary filmmakers job to tell audiences what to think but to provide audiences with as much information as the filmmaker has at his/her disposal (subject, of course, to the limitations imposed by time slots) and allow the audience to make up its own mind as to where the truth lies.

I have, today, published online, # 4 of my record of online communication between myself and CCF. Our relationship has been 100% online as you have refused to speak with me or meet with me in person. The negative aspect of this lack of face to face contact is that this 'dispute' (for want of a better word) has taken on a life of its own and is, in my estimation, a dreadful waste of time and energy. On the positive side, the fact that all of our communication has been online makes it impossible for either you and me to deny that we wrote what we wrote at a particular time.

In my mind the original reason for this 'dispute' is much less significant than the fact that the dynamic of it reveals just how lacking in transparency and accountability CCF is in the real world - as opposed to the online world in which NGOs can write what they like, regardless of the truth, because the aim is to raise money and the best way to do this is to tell potential sponsors and donors what they want to hear.

As always (and being at heart an optimist) I remain hopeful that you will change your position and put me in contact with Ka and Chuan so that I can (a) Find out from them what their lives comprise of now (perhaps CCF has, finally, helped them establish a new life in their homeland) and (b) to help the family in whatever way it would like to be helped, taking into account that my pockets are not all that deep. It is not the role of CCF to prevent me from making contact with the family;' to prevent me from fulfilling my promise of help made many years ago now.

http://citipointechurch.blogspot.com/2013/08/cambodian-childrens-fund-4.html

I am still in Phnom Penh if you would like to talk about any of this face to face.

best wishes

James

In the event that Scott does not respond to this email of three days ago (which experience suggests is highly likely) and continues to refuse to put me in contact with Ka and Chuan, or at least enquire as to whether they wish to be in contact with me, there is no point in attempting to communicate with Scott anymore. This does not mean that I am giving up on my quest to find Ka and Chuan. Far from it.

…to be continued…