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.
14th 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:
best wishes
17th 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.
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…
No comments:
Post a Comment