My dispute with the
Cambodian Children’s Fund began with a simple attempt on my part to give some photos to Sokayn and to fulfill my
promise to help her family financially in return for allowing me into their
lives, albeit briefly, dying my filming of CHANTI’S WORLD. Whatever
misunderstandings there were at the beginning (my unannounced arrival) would so
simply have been sorted out by Scott Neeson acting as a conduit for messages
between myself and the family. He chose not to. I managed to find the family anyway,
did some more filming with them (to bring me up to date) and was told certain
things by Ka and Chuan in an interview that led to my having a few more
questions for Scott.
29th July 2012
EMAIL FROM SCOTT NEESON
James,
I am replying on
the assumption that you believe you are working in the best interests of the
girls and family and that you have no ulterior motive. I'm replying too because
your actions could jeopardize the girl's well-being and put them at risk. You
have made a promise to the family without an understanding of the
implications.
As previously
mentioned, I am not at liberty to give out personal information of children in
our care, their families and previous histories. This is a policy that protects
their privacy. Being a vocal Westerner gives you no priority in terms
of accessing private information.
Consider the
response you would receive if you asked a welfare worker in Australia to
provide case details of a child in foster care because you required an ending
to your film or for simple personal interest. The children and families in our
care have the same rights in the protection of their privacy.
The parents are
welcome to discuss with our staff any concerns they have. We do not pretend to
be a "second family" to the children in our care and families are
generally encouraged to maintain close relations with their children. Our
overriding concern is ensuring the child's safety and welfare and a hope that
the parents will allow their child an opportunity for an education.
In fact, CCF is the
only organization in Cambodia that actively engages the families, to the extent
of providing transportation not only to the children from the garbage dwelling
communities but from far-flung provinces such as Poipet, Battambang and Svay Reang.
Every child in our care spends time with their families, most once or twice a
week and for those with distant homelands, during the major vacation periods.
The only exception are those children who face immediate and tangible risk;
these children account for less than 5% of those in our care. I ask that you
consider this before crusading on behalf of a family.
I don't see any
benefit in discussing this in person. Per above, we will gladly discuss with
family, authorized officials and those with legal guardianship. We do not
discuss with those who have a personal interest or wish to use the information
for entertainment.
I hope you are able
to put aside any self-righteousness or commercial intent and consider that
we may be acting in the interests of the Sokheng.
best
29th July 2012
EMAIL TO SCOTT NEESON
Dear Scott
In the interests of clarity, transparency and
accountability, let me go through your email of today one point at a time:
“I am replying on the assumption that you
believe you are working in the best interests of the girls and family and that
you have no ulterior motive.”
I am a documentary filmmaker, as you know. I have
been recording many stories in Cambodia this past 16 years. One of the stories
has to do with the small family I met whilst filming in the Phnom Penh rubbish
dump. My ‘ulterior motive’, if you like, is to make a documentary that reflects
aspects of life as it is lived by poor people in Cambodia.
“I'm replying too because your
actions could jeopardize the girl's well-being and put them at risk.”
In what way could my actions jeopardize the girl’s
well being or put them at risk?
“You have made a promise to the family
without an understanding of the implications.”
Srey Ka and Chuan wish to live in the province they
consider to be their real home and they wish their daughters to accompany them.
If there are implications that I am not aware of, please let me know what these
are.
“As previously mentioned, I am not at
liberty to give out personal information of children in our care, their
families and previous histories. This is a policy that protects their privacy.
Being a vocal Westerner gives you no priority in terms of accessing private
information.”
I have not asked for personal information about the
children. I get my ‘personal information’ from Srey Ka and Chuan.
“Consider the response you would receive
if you asked a welfare worker in Australia to provide case details of a child
in foster care because you required an ending to your film or for simple
personal interest. The children and families in our care have the same rights
in the protection of their privacy.”
Scott, more than 25 years ago I adopted a street
kid in Australia and I am well aware, through my experience with her and with
others, that I am able to act as an advocate on the part of anyone who gives me
permission to do so. I have, this morning, obtained just such a letter from
another poor person that enables me to ask questions on her behalf. This is
standard procedure. If need be, I will obtain such a document from Srey Ka and
Chuan. It probably will not be necessary since I do not require personal
information that I do not have.
“The parents are welcome to discuss with
our staff any concerns they have. We do not pretend to be a "second
family" to the children in our care and families are generally encouraged
to maintain close relations with their children. Our overriding concern is
ensuring the child's safety and welfare and a hope that the parents will allow
their child an opportunity for an education.”
Srey Ka and Chuan have expressed their concerns on
camera - the primary one being that they do not wish their daughters to remain
with CCF until they are 18. Rightly or wrongly they are of the belief that CCF
insists that it will keep the girls till they are 18. They claim also that they
have no contractual arrangement with CCF. Again, I do not know whether this is
correct or incorrect and if you do not wish to comment that is, of course, your
right.
“In fact, CCF is the only organization in
Cambodia that actively engages the families, to the extent of providing
transportation not only to the children from the garbage dwelling communities
but from far-flung provinces such as Poipet, Battambang and Svay Reang. Every
child in our care spends time with their families, most once or twice a week
and for those with distant homelands, during the major vacation periods. The
only exception are those children who face immediate and tangible risk; these
children account for less than 5% of those in our care. I ask that you consider
this before crusading on behalf of a family.”
Srey Ka and Chuan maintain that they get to see
their daughters for one day every two weeks. They have said to so camera. I
have no way of knowing if what they say is correct or not and, in the absence
of any response from you, I can only add, in my voice over commentary, that CCF
had no comment.
“I don't see any benefit in discussing
this in person. Per above, we will gladly discuss with family, authorized
officials and those with legal guardianship. We do not discuss with those who
have a personal interest or wish to use the information for entertainment.”
According to Srey Ka and Chuan there is no
contractual arrangement between themselves and CCF. If they are incorrect in
this and you do not wish to comment, all I can say, yet again, in my voice over
is, “CCF declined to comment.” This is, as you know, pretty standard procedure
in documentaries and current affairs programs. As for not wishing to meet with
me this is, of course, your right. The invitation was a matter of professional
courtesy.
I hope you are able to put aside any
self-righteousness or commercial intent and consider that we may be acting in
the interests of the Sokheng.
As for my ‘commercial intent’, I will never get
back anything close to the amount of money I have invested in my film this past
16 years. However, a substantial amount of what I do get will wind up in the
pockets of the poor people who have been so kind as to let me into their lives
over the years. In the case of Srey Ka and Chuan I intend to help them in such
a way that they will never need to work in the rubbish dump again.
best wishes
James Ricketson
29th Sept 2012
EMAIL FROM SCOTT NEESON
Likewise. We have
nothing else to add. Please refrain from emailing us further.
(1) Without having
met the man (he refuses to do so) I have gleaned three things about Scott
Neeson from my email communication with him:
(2) He plays fast
and loose with the truth.He does not answer questions.
(3) He makes
statements that are not based on fact but which are designed to both discredit the
person asking them and to throw up a smokescreen. For instance:
“…you
believe you are working in the best interests of the girls and family and that
you have no ulterior motive. I'm replying too because your actions could
jeopardize the girl's well-being and put them at risk.”
Need I state the
obvious? All I wanted, at the outset, was to give some photos to Sokayn and
make contact with her mother and father. From this Scott infers that I must
have ulterior motives that even I am not aware of. But will Scott say what
these are? No.
As for my wishing
to give photos to Sokayn and fulfill my promise to her parents to help the
family out financially, how could this “jeopardize the girl’s well-being”? How
could I, in fufilling my promise to help the family out financially, be placing
the girls at risk?
Scott does not
answer questions such as this. “We have nothing else to add. Please refrain
from emailing us further,” is Scott’s response when asked questions he
does not want to answer; questions that require transparency and accountability
on his part.
…to be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment