 |
After I had left Phnom Penh in July 2008, Pastor Leigh Ramsey got Chanti and her mother, Vanna, to place their thumb prints on this document, pretending that the agreement Chanti was entering into was with LICADHO - a leading human rights organisation in Cambodia. Pastor Ramsey then told Chanti that Rosa and Chita would, on the basis of the 'contract' she had signed, remain in Citipointe's 'SHE Rescue Home' until they were 18 years old.
|
Ms Sam Mostyn
President
Australian Council for International Development
20th Feb. 2014
Dear Ms Mostyn
Chris Adams, of the ACFID Code of Conduct Secretariat has, on your behalf, responded to my letter to you of 19th Feb. In so doing he has failed to answer my questions – without which it is not possible for me to know whether the making of a formal complaint to ACFID on Chanti and Chhork’s behalf is worthwhile or a waste of time.
Chanti and Chhork have been let down by so many organizations over the years that were, in theory, in a position to help them. I do not want to see them endure more suffering if yet another organization that should, by rights, be able to help get their daughters returned to them, cannot. The most important question is:
“In the event that Chanti and Chhork proceed, through me, to make a complaint, will ACFID require of the Global Development Group that it provide copies of all documents it has acquired from Citipointe church relating to the legality of the church’s removal of Rosa and Chita and their detention of the girls for five years during which time Chanti and Chhork have repeatedly requested their return?”
If this question is not going to be asked by ACFID, if ACFID is not in possession of the evidence most crucial to determining where the truth lies in this matter, there no point in conducting an investigation. And I will not recommend to Chanti and Chhork that they go down this path. They have suffered enough. I do not want to see their hopes raised, yet again, only to have them dashed – yet again.
Could you please, Ms Mostyn, provide Chanti and Chhork, through me, with an answer to this question? I will be meeting with them again today to discuss whether or not they should proceed with a complaint in the event that the Global Development Group fails to deal with adequately with the allegations I have made on their behalf in relation to Citipoointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’.
Chris Adams has asked me, on your behalf, to consider whether placing my questions to the Global Development Group in the public domain is consistent with the principles of natural justice. I fail to see how the asking of questions in public of an NGO that disburses $25 million of tax-deductible Australian dollars to other NGOs annually is inconsistent with the principles of natural justice!
It is ‘natural justice’ for Chanti and Chhork, Rosa and Chita that I am primarily concerned with. My asking of questions in a public domain should cause no discomfort to the Global Development Group if the NGO was, until a little over a week ago, aware of Chanti and Chhork’s five year battle with Citipointe church to have their daughters returned to their care. It may well be that Geoff Armstrong, when he has appraised himself of the facts on 24th Feb, will be horrified that GDG funding has been used by Citipointe church to break up a family and respond promptly in the manner in which GDG feels to be appropriate.
 |
In Nov 2008 I had this 'contract' translated. It is not counter-signed by any member of Citipointe church, makes no mention of Rosa and Chita staying with the church until they are 18 and has been declared a fraud by everyone who has read it - including the Trafficking Police
|
Chris also suggests that in copying ACFID on my letters to the Global Development Group I am acting in a way that may be prejudicial to the “successful resolution of your complaint.” This is not my complaint. It is Chanti and Chhork who have a complaint. I am merely acting as their advocate.
Without my advocacy, neither GDG nor ACFID would be aware of Chanti and Chhork’s plight. Neither can GDG or ACFID be aware of the plights of all the other impoverished and illiterate Cambodians on the receiving end of GDG-funded NGO aid whose human rights have been abused by the very NGOs supposed to be helping them – if these aid recipients do not have someone to advocate on their behalf.
I know of two other instances in Cambodia in which the beneficiaries of aid from Global Development Group funded NGOs have made the same complaint – namely that the NGOs in question refused to return their daughters to the family when requested by their parents. To whom should these two sets of parents address their complaints?
Only by chance, on 7th Feb, did I discover that the Global Development Group provides funding to Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home.” There is no mention of this fact that I can find on the Citipointe website. If, despite all the efforts that I have put into getting Chanti and Chhork’s children returned to them this past five years, I have been unaware of the involvement of the Global Development Group, what chance is there that impoverished and illiterate parents will ever know that the NGO that has abrogated their human rights is funded by an Australian NGO (in this instance, the GDG) that has a complaints process? And how will these impoverished and illiterate parents know, in the event GDG fails to address their complaint adequately, that they can lodge a complaint with ACFID?
 |
A few months after the church had taken complete control of the lives of their two daughters, Citipointe gave Chanti and Chhork (both Buddhists) this photo of Rosa, holding a silver crucifix up on the instruction of the photographer. Since 2008 Rosa and Chita havfe been indoctrinated with Citipointe's evangelical Christianity and have not been allowed to join the rest of their Buddhist family during any Cambodian festivals or ceremonies.
|
There is a mass of anecdotal evidence within Cambodia that human rights abuses of the kind that Chanti and Chhork have endured, occur with monotonous regularity. However, anecdote and innuendo are not enough to initiate an investigation – by either GDG or ACFID. ‘Common knowledge’ and rumour can only be used as a starting point for a proper and independent investigation. Without an advocate such as myself, however, who do the parents who claim to have been treated in much the same way that Chanti and Chhork have been, turn to for help? How can or will GDG or ACFID ever be aware of the complaints of these parents? . Neither organization can be. Neither organization has any mechanism whereby these parents can lodge a complaint. Or even to let the parents know that they have a right to lodge a complaint. And, of course, without a complaint, there is nothing for either GDG or ACFID to investigate. And without an investigation and the release of a subsequent report there is nothing for the media to report on – unless someone such as myself stumbles upon the impoverished Cambodians who claim that their human rights have been abused. In my case, three GDG-funded NGOs.
In the absence of a complaints process that aid recipients can take advantage of the status quo will be maintained – generous members of the Australian public who make tax-deductible donations to the Global Development Group (and other such NGOs) blissfully unaware that they may, in the own small way, with their donations, be complicit in the human rights abuses that occur within the NGO community in Cambodia. And perhaps elsewhere in the world.
There is a systemic problem here that needs to be addressed by ACFID, by the Global Development Group, by AusAID, by Australia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and by all the decent NGOs whose reputations will inevitably be tarnished by the revelation that there are some bad apples in the NGO barrel. ACFID, the GDG, AusAID, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the NGO community on Cambodia all know about the bad apples (of which there are too many) but have chosen, to date, to remain silent. It is time for them to speak out.
ACFID could take the lead here and initiate some form of independent monitoring and assessment process whereby impoverished and illiterate Cambodians whose human rights have been abused can be readily identified and their complaints addressed. An ‘Office of the Aid Ombudsman’, if you like. Such an Ombudsman’ office could see to it that all recipients of aid from Australian NGOs are aware, for instance, that they are under no obligation to place thumb prints on documents that they cannot read and whose contents have not been explained to them; that they have a right to be provided with a copy of whatever agreements they have entered into with an NGO. The recipients of Australian aid could also be made aware of that they have a right to make a complaint to the ‘Aid Ombudsman’ if they believe their rights have been abrogated by the NGO providing the aid.
The cost of this service to the recipients of aid could be borne through contributions made by NGOs. The Global Development Fund alone could, with just 1% of the $25 million it disburses each year, contribute $250,000 to the ‘Office of the Aid Ombudsman’.
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment