Directors
of the Global Development Group Board
Unit
6
734
Underwood Road
Rochedale,
QLD 4123
12th
Feb 2014
Dear
David James Pearson
Geoffrey Winston Armstrong
Ofelia (fe) Luscombe
Alan Benson
David Robertson
Since
my letter of 8th 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 31st 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 31st 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 2nd 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
No comments:
Post a Comment