3rd letter to the Directors of the Global Development Group

The Global Development Group is moving at a glacial pace to respond to the allegations I have made against Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’. It is now more than a week since GDG received a hard copy my letter of 8^th Feb,  electronic copies of the 8^th Feb letter and my 10^th Feb letter to The Hon Julie Bishop MP, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs. And five days since I sent my letter of 12th. Feb. which included both my Cambodian phone numbers. There has been no call from GDG!

Directors of the Global Development Group Board

Unit 6, 734 Underwood Road

Rochedale, QLD 4123                                                                                               

13^th Feb 2014

Dear    David James Pearson

Geoffrey Winston Armstrong

Ofelia (fe) Luscombe

Alan Benson

David Robertson

Since my letter of yesterday, Samantha Major has informed me that Peta Thomas is currently on assignment in Indonesia and that: “The Executive Director will be back in the office on 24^th February and will respond to your emails.”

Given the seriousness of the allegations I have made, I am more than a little surprised that the GDG believes this is a matter that can be left unattended to for the next 11 days – especially since we live in a digitally connected world in which a simple question can be asked from any part of the globe and transmitted within seconds to any other part of the globe. The question that needs to be asked by GDG is this:

"Mr James Ricketson, an Australian filmmaker, alleges that Citipointe church's "SHE Rescue Home' had no legal right to remove Rosa and Chita from their family home in 2008 and detain them for the last five years contrary to the express wishes of their parents – Chanti and Chhork. Could you please supply the Global Development Group with whatever documents (agreements and/or contracts) that the 'SHE Rescue Home' has entered into with any Cambodian government department in the relation to the custody of Rosa and Chita. Could you please also supply copies of these documents to the parents - Chanti and Chhork?"

This paragraph took one minute to write. A variation of it could be written by someone within the Global Development Group with the authority to ask such questions in less than five minutes. Peta Thomas could write such an email from Indonesia today if she has been, to date, unaware of the five year battle Chanti and Chhork have been engaged in with the church. Indeed, if the church has lied to Peta or kept secret from her the five year long battle Citipointe has been engaged in to deny Chanti and Chhork the right to bring up their daughters, she will almost certainly be very angry and keen for the truth to see the light of day as quickly as possible. Given the seriousness of the allegations  and her own potential complicity in the illegal detention of the girls, I am sure she could find five minutes to do so to write an email.  If Peta has no five minutes to spare, or if it is inappropriate for her to be involved in thus matter further, surely there must be someone within the GDG that does have five minutes to spare and the authority to  ask such a question?

The same applies, in terms of speed, at the Citipointe end of the communication process. If the church has the relevant documents these could be scanned, attached to an email and sent to the GDG in a matter of minutes. The whole operation need not take more than an hour or one day maximum. There is no reason why the GDG could not be in possession of copies of such documents by the end of business on Friday afternoon.

If the allegations contained in my emails and letter are unfounded, Citipointe can prove them to be so by the end of the week (tomorrow), just as my allegations could have proved to be unfounded at any point in the last five years.

GDG has declared its commitment to transparency and accountability and its adherence to the ACFID code of conduct. If Citipointe is not adhering to the ACFID code of conduct this reflects badly on the GDG and I would have though that the GDG would want this matter cleared up as quickly as possible.  Not in 11 days! 

This matter could either be put to rest in the next 24 hours by the revelation that Citipointe had a legal right to remove Rosa and Chita and detain them. Or, if Citipointe cannot or refuses to produce such documents, the GDG can (and I imagine will) initiate an investigation into how it is that Citipointe’s illegal actions escaped the scrutiny of the GDG monitoring and assessment process.

That Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ receives funding from the GDG only came to my attention a few days ago. This is a game changer because, whilst Citipointe can refuse to supply Chanti and Chhork, SISHA, LICADHO or myself with copies of the relevant documents and get away with it, it is hard to see how the church could refuse to supply a funding partner (the GDG) with copies – if, that is, the GDG asks for them.

The scenario presented to me by Samantha Major is one in which, it seems, Peta Thomas will not be able to attend to this matter until she returns from Indonesia. Is she expected back in days, weeks or months? Given that Peta was in charge of assessing and monitoring the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ is it appropriate that she have any involvement at all in any investigation of my allegations?

The problem with waiting for the return of the Executive Director is this: To date there has been nothing at stake for Citipointe. The church has been able to break Cambodian law with impunity, knowing full well that there is no Cambodian body that will hold the church accountable. For some years now Citipointe has been in receipt of funds from the GDG but these would, I presume, cease to flow into the church’s coffers if it turns out that the allegations I have made are true. This would put quite a dent in the church’s revenue stream and Citipointe could, if it so desired in the 11 days before the Executive Director looks at the matter, arrange for the production of an appropriately dated document that turns out to be the ‘contract’ that Chanti, Chhork and I have been asking to be provided a copy of for five years.

The July 31^st 2008 ‘contract’ is a fraud, as GDG’s lawyers will discover the moment they look at it. Citipointe has form when it comes to phony ‘contracts’ and, with its cash flow from GDG under threat, and this being Cambodia, the church may see some value in doing what it takes to bring the missing ‘contract;’ into being. Remember, this is the NGO that threatened to have me arrested, jailed and banned from coming to Cambodia ever again if I did not cease advocating in my blog on Chanti and Chhork’s behalf!

Ask Citipointe to produce the contracts and/or agreements by the end of the week and the manufacturing of documents as fraudulent as the 31^st July 2008 ‘contract’ will be not be easy within a 24 hour time span – not even in Cambodia!

best wishes

James Ricketson

2nd letter to the Directors of the Global Development Group, dated 12th Feb

Directors of the Global Development Group Board

Unit 6

734 Underwood Road

Rochedale, QLD 4123

12^th Feb 2014

Dear    David James Pearson

Geoffrey Winston Armstrong

Ofelia (fe) Luscombe

Alan Benson

David Robertson

Since my letter of 8^th Feb. I have had an opportunity to read through the Global Development Group’s 2013 Annual Report. Whilst it answers some of my questions it has also opened up a Pandora’s Box of new questions.

You will appreciate that accuracy is imperative in my presentation of GDG’s role in the funding of the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ in both my documentary and book. If any of the presumptions I have made or conclusions I have reached to date are incorrect I please do correct me.

Peta Thomas writes in the GDG Annual Report

“My specific role is to manage projects in Cambodia with assistance from Nigel Doughan and Makara Kin…we monitor and support projects…”

QUESTIONS:

- Has Citipointe informed  Peta Thomas, Nigel Doughan and Makara Kin that for five years Chanti and Chhork have been requesting that the church return their daughters to the family?

- Are Peta, Nigel and Makara aware that the document Pastor Leigh Johnson tricked Chanti into signing with a thumb print on 31^st July 2008 has been declared by everyone who has read it to carry no legal weight whatsoever? (If Peta, Nigel and Makara have not seen this ‘contract’ I can provide a copy of it and GDG can have its own lawyers look at it and assess its legal value.)

- If Peta, Nigel and Makara are aware of Chanti and Chhork’s multiple requests that their daughters be returned to the family, why have they not spoken with Chanti and Chhork, visited the family in Prey Veng or spoken with either (or both) the Village and Commune chiefs about this matter? Surely such a course of action would be integral to their assessment and monitoring of the ‘SHE Rescue Home’? Or do  Peta, Nigel and Makara accept, without question, whatever information they are provided by Citipointe?

- Are Peta, Nigel and Makara aware The ‘SHE Rescue Home’ has not provided $1 in financial help to Chanti’s family since July 2008?

- Are Peta, Nigel and Makara aware that last year, when she was 8 months pregnant and suffering from pneumonia, that Citipointe refused to assist Chanti to receive medical care, thus endangering the life of Chanti’s soon-to-be-born daughter?

- Are Peta, Nigel and Makara aware  that, despite many promises made this past five years, Citipointe has never once provided Chanti and Chhork, myself or LICADHO with a re-integration program that would result in Rosa and Chita being re-united with their family? In light of the failure of Citipointe to initiate any form of re-integration progam, the following extract from an email  sent to me by Pastor Ramsay on 31^st July 2012, is pertinent:

“Recapping our discussions that we had with you on the Riverfront in Phnom Penh on Saturday 28 July 2012, our stand has not changed in that we are committed to the girls and we desire to safely reintegrate them home under MoSAVY’s direction and instruction.

The reference to ‘MoSAVY’s direction and instruction’ is disingenuous given that Mo SAVY has played no role at all in the lives of Rosa and Chita this past five years and not only refuses to provide Chanti, Chhork, LICADHO or myself with any documents relating to the removal of the girls but does not bother to even acknowledge receipt of letters from the parents of myself.

- Have Peta, Nigel or Makara  read the statement, dated 2^nd Jan 2014,  Chanti presented to the court a few weeks ago? I have attached a copy in Khmer and pasted a translation of it below.

- What training have Peta, Nigel and Makara received that equips them to assess an NGO such as the ‘SHE Rescue Home’?

In short, how thorough or effective have been the monitoring and assessment processes undertaken by Peta, Nigel and Makara?

If Peta, Nigel and Makara are not aware of any of the above-mentioned documents, why are they not? What else are they not aware of? (A thorough reading of my blog is in order if they wish to discover the extent to which they have been kept in the dark by Citipointe.)

I do not wish to be unfair to Peta, Nigel and Makara. If they have been kept in the dark or lied to by Citipointe it would be difficult for them to be aware of what the church actually does in the field, as opposed to what Citipointe claims to do online. If this be the case, however, it points to a serious problem for GDG in its assessment and monitoring procedures.

If, on the other hand, Peta, Nigel and Makara are aware that the parents of two girls in the care of the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ have been asking for the return of their daughters for five years but have never bothered to speak with the girls’ parents about this (Chanti and Chhork) or visit their home and village to make their own enquiries, their competence as assessors and monitors must be called into question.

In my experience of dealing with Citipointe this past five and a half years,  GDG’s goal of “effectively coordinating, overseeing and monitoring activity by trained GDG staff” has demonstrably failed in the case of the ‘SHE Rescue Home’. How extensive are such failures within Cambodia? How extensive are such failures worldwide?

It is not just that GDG funds are potentially being wasted by inefficient, ineffective and fraudulent NGOs but that these funds, contributed by generous Australian tax-payers, may also be being used in far flung corners of the globe to abrogate the human rights of families such as Chanti and Chhork’s. Clearly, this is the last thing that GDG wishes to be complicit in but I fail to see, from what I have read on the GDG website, from reading your annual report and from my extensive experience now of Citipointe church’s tendency to play fast and loose with the truth, how GDG can rest assured that it is not being taken for a ride by unscrupulous NGOs. I include Citipointe in my list of unscrupulous NGOs and will not take it off my list (the very top of my list!) until such time as the church provides documents demonstrating the legality of its actions in both removing Rosa and Chita in 2008 and detaining them in 2014.

If GDG has faith in the integrity of the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ Citipointe will, upon being asked, immediately supply GDG with copies of all documents the church has in its possession that reveal its legal right to have (a) removed Rosa and Chita in 2008 and (b) to detain Rosa and Chita in Feb 2014. This could (and I believe should) happen immediately. Today.

If Citipointe can provide GDG, LICADHO, Chanti and Chhork and myself with copies of these documents and if the documents prove to be legally valid, one part of my criticism of the church will have been proved to be invalid. However, even if this were to occur today, the question remains as to why it has taken five years for Citipointe to produce such documents.

Lets leave aside for the time being the question of the legality of Citipointe’s actions and look at the church’s effectiveness in terms of GDG’s stated aims, as outlined in your Annual Report:

- The ‘SHE Rescue Home’ has failed to alleviate Chanti’s family’s poverty.

- The ‘SHE Rescue Home’ has failed to act in accordance with the basic precepts of social justice and indeed has seriously abrogated the human rights of both Rosa and Chita and their parents, Chanti and Chhork.

- The ‘SHE Rescue Home’ has failed to do anything at all to help Rosa and Chita’s family become self-sufficient and not dependent on outside assistance.

- The ‘SHE Rescue Home’ has failed to initiate any Micro Enterprise and Micro Finance projects to help Rosa and Chita’s family or community.

As for GDG’s aim to rescue trafficked children, the children who have been trafficked in this instance – Rosa and Chita -  have been trafficked by Citipointe (in accordance with Cambodian law), to serve the church’s religious and money raising agendas. And not one cent of the money raised by the church in its presentation of Rosa and Chita as ‘victims of human trafficking’ (itself a demonstrable lie) has gone to provide any form of support for Rosa and Chita’s family this past five years.

GDG has comprehensively failed, through the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ in achieving any of the aims relevant to Rosa, Chita and their family as outlined in your Annual Report.

As for GDG’s Values, Citipointe church has exhibited dishonesty, not honesty; has not behaved in an ethical manner; has shown no empathy at all for the emotional distress caused to Chanti and Chhork through the removal of their daughters; has shown no respect at all for Chanti and Chhork’s rights as parents; has not treated Chantis family as it would like to be treated; has provided no services at all to Chanti’s family.

Whether the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ is just one bad apple in a barrel filled otherwise green and unblemished apples, I have no idea. And nor can GDG have any idea if its assessment and monitoring processes are as inefficient as have been manifested in the case of the ‘SHE Rescue Home’.

If need be, I will take Citipointe to court in Australia but, win or lose, GDG’s problem will remain if you do not initiate an efficient and effective assessment and monitoring process. One day it will not simply be a matter of an Australian based NGO in receipt of GDG funds illegally removing two girls from their family (easily dismissed as an aberration) but a major front page scandal involving a lot of money and raising in the minds of your donors the perfectly legitimate question:

“Why did GDG’s assessment and monitoring processes not pick up this scam?”

In my experience, the scams carried out by the charitable sector, by NGOs are so prevalent that it is just a matter of time that the bubble is burst and legitimate NGOs will suffer along with the inefficient, ineffective and fraudulent ones.

I am, at present, working on the presumption that the Global Development Group is unaware of the various forms of fraud that have been and continue to be practiced by Citipointe church. In order that GDG be able to form its own independent assessment of whether or not what I have written here and in my previous letter and blog is truthful, I suggest the following:

- That I meet with Peta Thomas, Nigel Doughan and Makara Kin and provide them with copies of the documents I have mentioned above and show them footage from my documentary relevant to the allegations I have made against Citipointe.

- That Peta Thomas, Nigel Doughan and Makara Kin meet with Chanti and Chhork and ask whatever questions they feel to be appropriate in relation to this matter.

- That Peta Thomas, Nigel Doughan and Makara Kin visit Chanti and Chhork’s village in Prey Veng (90minutes from Phnom Penh) to see their home, meet their children, speak with the Village and Commune chiefs and others in the community in order to arrive at their own independent assessment of the family’s situation. (It would be inappropriate for me to accompany them on this visit the Chanti and Chhork’s village.)

I will be in Cambodia for the next week and will make myself available at short notice to assist GDG in its endeavours to properly monitor and assess Citipointe’s involvement in the lives of this family.

I can be contacted on the following two phone numbers in Cambodia: 015611478 and 017 898 361.

In the interests of both transparency and speeding up this process I am copying this to ACFID as it clearly has a vested interest in whether or not the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ is abiding by its Code of Conduct or not.

best wishes

James Ricketson

to Dr. Meredith Burgmann, President, Australian Council for International Development (ACFID)

Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ is in receipt of funding from the Global Development Group (GDG) – an Australian Non Government Organization. GDG is a member of the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID).

The Australian Council for International Development begins its description of itself, online, with the following:

"ACFID unites Australia’s non-government aid and international development organisations to strengthen their collective impact against poverty.

Our Vision

A world where gross inequality within societies and between nations is reversed and extreme poverty is eradicated.

A world where human development is ecologically and socially sustainable for the benefit of current and future generations. A world where government lead their societies in striving to protect and realise all people’s human rights.

This vision will be achieved through the collective efforts of civil society, governments, business and all peoples who are concerned for the future of our collective humanity.

Our roles and purpose

We advocate with our members for Australia to be a leading force in international human development and human rights. We are the primary vehicle for collaboration and collective action by NGOs in Australia. We foster good practice and capture this in sector standards and self-regulation. We foster peer support, learning and networking amongst NGOs, and all interested in human development and human rights."

Given the seriousness of the allegations I have made against Citipointe church, I felt it appropriate to write the following to the President of ACFID – Dr Meredith Burgmann. Before reading it, you might like to view the following video, shot by myself a few weeks ago. It will give you a pretty good idea of just how the government of Cambodia protects the human rights of its citizens – in this instance the constitutionally guaranteed right of free assembly and free speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GupiG7lJdI

TO DR BURGMANN, President, Australian Council for International Development (ACFID)

Dear Dr Burgmann

I am writing in relation to an Australian NGO in Cambodia by the name of the ‘SHE Rescue Home’. The NGO, administered by Brisbane-based Citipointe church, is in receipt of funding from the Global Development Group - a member of ACFID. From what I read on the ACFID website, both GDG and the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ are bound by the ACFID Code of Conduct.

As my attached letter of 8^th Feb to the Directors of GDG makes clear, (along with my letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, dated 10^th Feb) it is my contention (and I have ample evidence to support it) that the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ is not only in serious breach of ACFID’s Code of Conduct but that the church-run NGO is engaged in human rights abuses of a kind that would, if perpetrated in Australia, see its staff in court facing serious kidnapping-related criminal charges.

To be specific: In mid 2008 Citipointe church illegally removed the two eldest daughters of materially poor Cambodian parents from their family. For five years the parents, Chanti and Chhork, have been asking the church to return their daughters – Rosa and Chita. Citipointe refuses to do so or to provide any evidence at all to anyone that its actions in removing the girls and holding them is in accordance with Cambodian law. My attempts, on behalf of Chanti and Chhork, to have their daughters returned to them this past five years are to be found, in some detail, on the following blog:

http://citipointechurch.blogspot.com/

I have no reason to believe that the GDG is aware that Citipointe has illegally removed and detained the two daughters of a materially poor Cambodian family. Indeed, I see no way that the GDG could be aware – unless the church were to make known to a GDG project assessor/monitor the circumstances surrounding the removal of these two children.  Since an NGO breaking Cambodian law and abrogating the human rights of poor Cambodians is not likely to admit to the fact, how can GDG or ACFID be sure which NGOs are abiding by the Code of Practice and which are not?

If Citipointe  has made no mention of the serious allegations that have been made against the church over a period of five years, backed up by lots of evidence, might there be a problem with the ACFID concept of self-regulation that needs to be addressed?  If Citipointe church can break Cambodian law and breach the fundamental human rights of materially poor Cambodians with impunity, how many other GDG/ACFID projects worldwide are being compromised in the same way? The problem here is not just aid money wasted or aid money being used to abrogate the human rights of recipients of such aid in third world countries but the imprimatur of approval that GDG and ACFID provide fraudulent NGOs. They can state, in public, “Our activities have been monitored and assessed by the GDG in accordance with the ACFID code of conduct and we passed with flying colours.” Unless they have done their homework well and discovered that there is no independent assessment or monitoring process, the recipient of this message (a journalist, say) might be inclined to ask no more questions, to look no further and to arrive at the conclusion that the complaints of Chanti and Chhork (in this instance) have no merit.

As anyone involved in the delivery of foreign aid knows, Cambodia is awash with fraudulent NGOs. Given the lack of any rule of law, the prevalence of corruption (Cambodia is rated one of the most corrupt countries in the world) pretty well anyone can set up an NGO here and raise money to ‘rescue’ someone – children and ‘victims of human trafficking’ being the favourite. (No NGOs are interested in rescuing old men and women who must beg and search through rubbish to survive!)

There is no Cambodian government body that is engaged in serious and effective monitoring and effectiveness of NGOs. And there is no body within the NGO community in Cambodia in a position to check an NGO’s bona fides, assess or monitor the work it does.  Or the work it purports to do? In the case of Citipointe, what the church actually does bears little relationship to what it says it does. The end result is that both GDG and ACFID are, unknowingly I am sure, complicit in the church’s human rights abuses.

With hundreds of millions of foreign aid dollars up for grabs it is unsurprising that fraudulent NGOs set up shop here (I am in Cambodia) and tell GDG and, by extension,  ACFID, what they want to hear – knowing full well that they will never be independently assessed or monitored. If there is no-one within either GDG or ACFID to ask the right questions or insist on viewing documents pertaining to the legality of the NGOs’ activities, there is a huge incentive for fraudulent NGOs to do pretty much what they please – with little chance that their illegal or fraudulent activities will be exposed.  This is the case with Citipointe church – whose ‘SHE Rescue Home’ has been in receipt of GDG funds for five years without ever once having to demonstrate that the church has a legal right to be holding Rosa and Chita in its care and contrary to the express wishes of their parents.

If you doubt the veracity of this statement, ask Citipointe today to forward to you whatever agreements and contracts the church has entered into with Chanti and Chhork or with whatever Cambodian government department Citipointe claims has provided the church with a legal right to hold the girls. This is a task that could be achieved by Citipointe with the composition of a brief email with a few attachments. Much less than half an hours work. Citipointe will not comply with ACFID’S wishes in this, or with GDG’s. Nor will it supply such evidence of the legality of its removal of Rosa and Chita to Cambodia’s leading human rights NGO, LICADHO, or to the girls’ parents Chanti and Chhork. Or to myself as a legally appointed advocate for Chanti and Chhork.

Let me give you a concrete example of how ACFID can, unwittingly, be involved in the illegal removal of children from their families. All research suggests that 75% of the children in Cambodian ‘orphanages’ are not orphans. 75% of the children in Cambodian ‘orphanages’ have at least one parent alive. Even if they have no mum and dad the remaining 25% will have uncles, aunts and grandparents (an extended family and community) who could, but for their extreme poverty, take care of them.

If 75% of the children in ‘orphanages’ in Cambodia are not orphans, it stands to reason that around 75% of the orphanages in this country should close down. Despite many calls for this to happen, it has not, and it will not. The orphanage business is a profitable one and poorly paid Cambodian government officials can readily be encouraged to turn a blind eye to the many scams that occur within the ‘orphanage’ business.

Are either or both GDG and ACFID providing funding to sham ‘orphanages’ in Cambodia? How would you know if you were? Or, to put it another way, how easy would it be for those who run such ‘orphanages’ to deceive both GDG and ACFID given the lack of independent monitoring and assessment of the NGOs’ activities? I can identify two Australian NGO recipients of tax-deductible funding that have received the ACFID seal of approval and that are in the business of ‘rescuing’ children and providing no assistance at all to the families or communities from which the children came – in a dynamic almost identical to the one that led to Citipointe taking control of the lives of Rosa and Chita.

I will not identify them here but would be happy to pass on the information I have to anyone within the GDG or ACFID who might be interested.

Lest I have created the opposite impression, I admire the work done by GDG and ACFID. However,  I am simultaneously aware that there are many fraudulent, ineffective and incompetent NGOs working in the field. It concerns me that, as a result or poor or non-existent assessment and monitoring processes, both GDG and ACFID may be funneling Australian tax-payer dollars into the coffers of NGOs who do not adhere to the ACFID code of conduct, who break the laws of their host country with impunity and which practice human rights abuses of the kind that I allege Citipointe church is engaged in.

best wishes

James Ricketson