Dear Members of the Global
Development Group Board
Your lack of meaningful response to
any of my letters, the Global Development Group’s lack of interest in meeting
with Chanti and Chhork, your lack of curiosity to know the names of the
GDG-funded NGOs I have identified as breaching the ACFID Code of Conduct speaks
for itself of GDG’s lack of any real commitment to the precepts of either
transparency or accountability.
I wonder if any of you are curious to
know how it was that Geoff Armstrong knew, two days before the court document
was signed, that I was to be charged with hindering Citipointe church in its
efforts to ‘help prostitutes’. After five years of my ‘hindering’ Citipointe,
with no interest at all on the part of the Cambodian authorities, Geoff knows,
two days before it arrives at my hotel, that the court is going to issue a
warrant based on the notion that I have been ‘hindering’!
I wonder, if the GDG board ever gets
to ask questions, if it has occurred to any of you to ask Citipointe how many
‘prostitutes’ are in the church’s care? The accompanying question should be, if
you had any curiosity at all about how your money in being spent:
“What percentage
of the girls in the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ are resident purely and simply because
they are ‘at risk’ of becoming prostitutes? And who decides that they are ‘at
risk’? Citipointe church?”
Given that 40% of Cambodia’s population is
malnourished I think it is fair to presume that 40% of girls in Cambodia
between the ages of 8 and 16 could be deemed, by Citipointe, to be ‘at risk’
and so in need of being removed from their families by the church.
Now that you are aware of the
fraudulent document that Citipointe got Chanti to sign on 31st July
2008 in order to steal Rosa and Chita, do you have any concerns at all that the
same might have occurred to other girls? There is no shortage of girls from
poor families that could be deemed to be ‘at risk’.
On the basis of GDG’s lack of
response to my letters, its refusal to meet with Chanti and Chhork and its lack
of curiosity about human rights abuses being practiced by NGOs funded by the
Global Development Group, I believe that members of the Australian public would
be ill advised to give their money to GDG - an NGO that has, in effect, no
assessment and monitoring procedures in place.
I have included, below, for reasons
that will become apparent later in the week if I am arrested at the behest of
Citipointe church, my letter to our then Foreign Minister, the Hon Bob Carr of
11th March 2013
best wishes
James Ricketson
Senator, the Hon Bob Carr
Foreign Minister
R.G. Casey Building
John McEwen Crescent
Barton
ACT 0221 Australia
11th March 2013
Dear Senator Carr
This letter concerns a poor Cambodian family whose two eldest
daughters were ‘stolen’ by an Australian-run NGO in Phnom Penh close to five
years ago. The NGO, Citipointe church, based in Brisbane, refuses to return the
girls – Rosa, aged 11 and Chita, aged 10 - to their family’s care, in
contravention of UNICEF’S ‘Convention on the Rights of the Child’) and despite multiple requests by the parents
(Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork) that the church do so.
I have attempted, without success, to raise this matter with
Australia’s Ambassador to Cambodia, Penny Richards, in five letters - hand
delivered by myself to the Australian Embassy in Phnom Penh, on 20th,
22nd, 26th, 28th Feb. and 4th March. Ambassador Richards has not acknowledged
receipt of any of my letters. It is for this reason that I am writing to you -
in the hope that, as Foreign Minister, you will be either able to provide me with answers to my
questions and those of Yem Chanthy (whom I know as Chanti) or inform me that
the illegal removal of Chanti’s children from their family in 2008 by an
Australian-based NGO is not a matter in which the Department of Foreign Affairs
can intervene or take an interest.
The first of my letters to Ambassador Richards can be found at:
My subsequent letters to Ms Richards can also be found on
my blog, along with my letters to various other parties whom I believe should
have an interest in the right of Rosa and Chita (to quote the Convention on the
Rights of the Child) “to participate fully in
family, cultural and social life.”
On my blog can also be found my response to Citipointe’s Pastor
Mulheran’s not-so-thinly-veiled threats to have me ‘forcibly removed’,
arrested, jailed and banned from coming to Cambodia. Having filmed the forcible
and illegal removal of the community living adjacent to the (then) new
Australian Embassy I have had some first hand experience of what ‘forcible’
means in a Cambodian context. Forcible removals of Cambodians from their homes
and land is an almost daily occurrence in Cambodia.
That Pastor Mulheran believes that he can pick up the phone and
request of the relevant Cambodian Government Minister that I be ‘forcibly
removed’ and put in jail speaks volumes of Citipointe church’s modus operandi
and the way in which the concept of ‘civil society’ manifests itself in
Cambodia. The rich and powerful of all nationalities, can break the law with
impunity in Cambodia.
My several attempts to raise the matter of the illegal removal
of Yem Chanty’s daughters with the previous Australian Ambassador to Cambodia (along
with the impending illegal removal of the Australian Embassy’s neighbours) were
ignored. When I refused to accept silence as an appropriate response, my
subsequent letters and emails were responded to by DFAT spin doctors who
answered none of my questions but merely directed me to the DFAT website. I
made a video of this illegal eviction – carried out
in the total absence of even the mildest protest from the Australian Embassy
until five hours before the eviction itself. My video (Losing Ground - Group 78 Eviction
- Part 1) can be found online at:
I have enclosed a photocopy
of a letter written by the Commune Chief of the village in which (Yem Chanthy
and Both Chhork) own a home. It speaks for itself of the determination of
Chanti and Chhork to have their daughters returned to them – five years after
their illegal removal, and to be supplied with evidence of the legality of
Citipointe church’s actions. A translation of the letter to Ith Sam Heng,
Cambodia’s Minister of Social Affairs, reads as follows:
“I am writing on
behalf of Yem Chanthy and her husband Both Chhork and their two daughters –
Rosa and Chita.
Rosa and Chita
live in Citipointe church’s She Rescue Home in Phnom Penh. Yem Chanthy and Both
Chhork have asked Citipointe church many times in the past four years to return
their daughters to their care. They are not victims of Human Trafficking. They
went to stay with the She Rescue Home in 2008 when Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork
had financial difficulties and were very poor. In Nov 2008 they were not poor.
They had two businesses and were earning money but Citipointe church refused to
return Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork’s daughters.
Yem Chanthy and
Both Chhork now own a house in Prey Veng and a tuk tuk and can I can afford to
take care of all of their children. I request on their behalf that Rosa and
Chita be released back into the custody of their parents.
Could you please
also provide me with copies of the contracts that Citipointe church made with
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Social Affairs that allowed
the church to hold Rosa and Chita this long period of time. I have requested
copies of these contracts but Citipointe church as refused to supply them.
Thank you
Minister Ith Sam Heng.”
Since Nov 2008 Citipointe has refused to provide the
parents of Rosa and Chita (Chanti and Chhork) with copies of any contract
or other agreement the church has entered into with the Ministries of Foreign
or Social Affairs that give Citipointe the right to retain custody of the girls
and to ignore the frequent requests of the parents that they be returned to the
care of the family. Chanti and Chhork have no idea why their children were
forcibly removed by an Australian church; why, close to five years later, they
remain in the care of an Australian-based Christian NGO or what they must do to
have their children returned to the family.
The Cambodian Ministry of Social Affairs likewise refuses to
provide Chanti and Chhork with a reason why the girls were removed from their
care, with copies of any contractual agreements the Ministry has entered into
with Citipointe church or any information at all regarding what then parents
must do to get Rosa and Chita back.
It would seem, from Pastor Mulheran’s 21st Feb letter to myself
(in which he threatens to have me ‘forcibly removed’) that some part of the
justification for not returning Rosa and Chita to the care of their parents (or
perhaps the entire justification) resides in Rosa and Chits being ‘deemed’ by
the church and the Ministry of Social Affairs to be victims of Human
Trafficking. Citipointe knows, as does the Ministry of Social Affairs, that the
girls were not and never have been victims of Human Trafficking. Indeed, it is
only recently that Citipointe has introduced the ‘Human Trafficking’ element to
the church’s seemingly never-ending reasons not to release Rosa and Chita back
into the care of their family. That Citipointe church can simply wave its magic
wand and turn two girls into ‘victims of Human Trafficking’ speaks for itself
of the church’s clutching at straws to justify its actions.
It is telling that neither Citipointe church nor a
representative of the Ministry of Social Affairs has visited the villages of
either Chanti’s or Chhork’s families (20 minutes part in Prey Veng province) to
talk with their respective Commune Chiefs. It is telling also that no
representative of the Ministry of Social Affairs has ever visited the current
home of Chanti and Chhork (or any of their previous homes this past five
years) to make an assessment regarding the suitability of the living conditions
for Rosa and Chita. As my documentary reveals the family home is far superior
in every respect to the homes that 80% of Cambodians live in.
Chanti and Chhork now own a tuk tuk (a three wheeled taxi) and
have a regular (if modest) income. Chanti and her mother Vanna supplement the
family income with jobs that involve making and selling artifacts for tourists.
And the family is the owner of a home in the village of Chhork’s family in Prey
Veng – a village in which many members of Chhork’s extended family live. (Chhork
is one of 15 brothers and sisters). Twenty minutes up the road is the village
in which Chanti’s mother Vanna’s extended family lives. Again, it is telling
that in the close to five years that Rosa and Chita have been living in the She
Rescue Home, Citipointe has refused every request made by Chanti and Chhork
that the girls be able to visit their two extended families in Prey Veng – a
mere two hour drive from Phnom Penh – or to take part in any Buddhist or family
celebrations.
By Cambodian standards Chanti and Chhork’s family could now be
characterized as lower middle class – struggling to keep their heads above
water financially, as is the case for the bulk of Cambodian families. And yet
Citipointe church refuses to return the two eldest daughters of the family to
the care of the family. A question:
Do you, as
Foreign Minister, have the moral authority to request that Citipointe church
present Chanti, Chhork and DFAT with copies of any and all contracts or
agreements that give the church the legal right to hold Rosa and Chita against
the wishes of their parents?
On 13th Feb 2008, ten Prime Minister
Kevin Rudd said the following in his apology speech to the ‘Stolen Generations’
of Australian Aboriginals.
We reflect in
particular on the mistreatment of those who were stolen generations - this
blemished chapter in our nation's history. The time has now come for the nation
to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past
and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise for the laws
and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted
profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians. We
apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children from their families, their communities and their country. For the
pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for
their families left behind, we say sorry. To the mothers and the fathers, the
brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we
say sorry.”
In ten or twenty years time will the
then Prime Minister of Australia be issuing a similar apology to the children
and parents of Cambodian families broken up by NGOs such as Citipointe’s ‘She
Rescue Home’? Why, in 2013, are Australian NGOs able to export the thoroughly
discredited form of social engineering that led to the ‘Stolen Generation’
apology to third world countries – in some cases whilst in receipt of funding
from AusAID? Again I ask, do you as Foreign Minister have the moral authority
to at least publicly denounce this practice?
In Nov 2012, whilst in Phnom Penh,
Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced that Australia would (I am quoting
a press release here):
“…fund a $50
million Asia-Asia Program to combat Trafficking in Persons, which will reduce
trafficking in persons by strengthening criminal justice systems in
Cambodia….Investigators and prosecutors will be supported to increase
convictions and reduce opportunities for
trafficking,
while victims of trafficking will be supported through the criminal justice
system. Trafficking in persons is a global issue that ruins the lives of its
victims and profoundly affects their families and communities…”
Whilst trafficking takes many forms,
it is the headline-grabbing manifestations that capture the attention of the
media – particularly young girls who have been trafficked for the purposes of
sexual exploitation. There are less headline grabbing forms of trafficking,
however – such as the one that Chanti and her daughters Rosa and Chita have
fallen victim to. I need not recount, in detail, how it was that Citipointe
church used a combination of bribes, deceit and outright lies to acquire
custody of Rosa and Chita. This is well documented in my letters to Ambassador
Richards and documented in full on my blog:
There is a thriving orphanage
industry in Cambodia – not because there is a glut of orphans (there isn’t) but
because running an orphanage or a rescue centre for victims of Human
Trafficking is a great draw card for non government organizations wishing to
cajole members of the donor pubic into opening their hearts and wallets. The
problem is, in Cambodia in 2013, that roughly 75% of orphans living in
orphanages are not orphans! They have at least one living parent but he or she
is poor. Likewise, only 16 % of the
girls living in the She Rescue Home are (by church’s own admission) actual
victims of Human Trafficking. However, by a verbal sleight of hand the church
can (and does) present the 84% that are not
victims of Human Trafficking as being victims of Human Trafficking. This is
very effective fund-raising ploy but a totally dishonest one.
Consider the following quote from
Cambodia’s:
Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual
Exploitation
Article
8:Definition of Unlawful Removal
The act of unlawful removal in
this act shall mean to:
1)
Remove a person from his/her current place of residence to a place under
the actor’s or a third persons control by means of force, threat, deception,
abuse of power or enticement, or
2) Without
legal authority or any other legal justification to do so to take a minor
person under general custody or curatoship or legal custody away
from the legal custody of the parents, care taker or guardian.
Article 9:
Unlawful removal, inter alia, of Minor
A person who
unlawfully removes a minor or a
person under general custody or curatorship or legal custody shall
be punished with imprisonment for 2 to 5 years.
The italics are mine and are a neat
summary of the way in which Chanti and Chhork’s daughters, Rosa and Chita, were
removed from their care.
I would like to finish with a quote from the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Australia is a signatory:
Built
on varied legal systems and cultural traditions, the Convention is a
universally agreed set of non-negotiable standards and obligations. These
basic standards—also called human rights—set minimum entitlements and freedoms
that should be respected by governments…. It spells out the basic human rights
that children everywhere have: the right to survival; to develop to the
fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to
participate fully in family, cultural and social life.
Rosa
and Chita have been denied, by Citipointe church, the right “to participate fully in family, cultural and social life”. They have
been denied to right to participate in any way at all in family, cultural and
social life – other, that is, than a few hours of supervised visits each month
– amounting to around 24 hours per annum.
yours sincerely
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment