 |
By Nov 2008, Chanti and Chhork had landed back on their feet financially
|
Ms Sam Mostyn
President
Australian Council for International Development
21st Feb. 2014
Dear Ms Mostyn
It is now ten days since the Global Development Group received my first letter (by post and electronically) alerting the NGO to Citipointe church’s illegal removal and detention of Chanti and Chhork’s daughters – Rosa and Chita - in 2008.
Over these two weeks no representative of the Global Development Group, of which there are three stationed in Cambodia, has made any effort to meet and talk with Chanti and Chhork – either in person or by telephone. GDG has shown no interest in the evidence that Chanti and Chhork have that bears witness to their allegations, no interest in visiting their home in Prey Veng (90 minutes from Phnom Penh) or in speaking with anyone in the community about what has transpired this past five years. Chhork is one of 16 children and the village is filled with members of his extended family. Nor has GDG availed itself of my invitation to show Cambodia-based representatives of its staff audio-visual evidence that is relevant to these allegations.
 |
Chhork, in the background, lifts buckets of water from the river to wash the deck of the houseboat in which the family now lives
|
It would seem, in the view of the Global Development Group, that whatever investigation it conducts into the allegations can be conducted without speaking with Chanti and Chhork or taking into account any of the evidence available to it. If this be the case, here we have a graphic example of what is wrong with the relationship between NGOs and those whom it is attempting to help with their aid – Chanti and Chhork are, quite simply, irrelevant. Their fate, for better or for worse, is to be decided by white men and women elsewhere in the world in a process that bears striking similarities to 19th and 20th century colonialism.
I still have no reason to doubt the integrity of the GDG or that its motives in wishing to help poor people like Chanti and Chhork are pure. However, as the old saying goes, “The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions.” In this instance, GDG’s ‘good intentions’ have, through its funding of the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ helped create a five and a half year hell for Chanti and Chhork. And all because the Global Development Group does not have in place effective monitoring and assessment processes. The question arises:
“If GDG’s assessment and monitoring processes are ineffective in Cambodia, how effective are they in other parts of the world in which GDG disburses Australian aid dollars to NGOs?”
 |
Chhork and Srey Ka, Nov 2008
|
Given that there are 25 million of these dollars being disbursed this is a question that GDG needs to pay close attention to. This is a question that needs to be addressed. It may well be that the lack of proper assessment and monitoring of GDG funded projects in Cambodia is anomalous and that the problem is a minor one. Not minor, of course, if you happen to be the parents of girls illegally removed by Citipointe church! Or the girls themselves – denied access to their siblings, their parents, their extended family, their community, their religion and their culture. And what of the other girls resident in the ‘SHE Rescue Home’? How many of them are ‘victims’ and how many of them have been, as was the case with Chanti and Chhork, tricked into giving up their daughters?
The question now is:
“Will the Global Development Group move heaven and earth to investigate the allegations? Or will these allegations be viewed as a public relations problem to be dealt with by a spin doctor?”
 |
Chhork is making a modest living taking tourists cruising on the river in the family house boat
|
The lack of any attempt on the part of GDG to speak with Chanti and Chhork this past 10 days suggests that GDG has decided upon the latter course of action. That there is only one person within GDG able to address these allegations – Geoff Armstrong – is either disingenuous or points to an inability on the part of GDG to deal appropriately with allegations in a timely manner. If the allegation was that a GDG funded NGO was, in the midst of a life-threatening emergency, misappropriating GDG funds or failing to use them effectively, would GDG need to wait two weeks for Geoff Armstrong to return to work before commencing investigations?
The Global Development Group is more than adequately staffed to have set the investigative process in motion before Geoff returned from his travels. When he arrives back at work on 24th Feb Geoff could have on his desk: (1) Copies of any and all contracts/agreements that Citipointe church has entered into with any and all Cambodian government departments, (2) a report written by a GDG representative in Cambodia who has spoken with Chanti and Chhork, viewed the documents they have in their possession and viewed the audio-visual material that I have offered to share with GDG.
 |
By Cambodian standards Chanti and Chhork's home is salubrious
|
On the basis of the information Geoff would have at his disposal on 24th Feb. he would be able to decide, broadly speaking, on two possible courses of action:
(1) The Global Development Group has no reason to believe that Citipointe has not acted in accordance with Cambodian law and in compliance with the ACFID Code of Conduct and we stand by the church’s ’SHE Rescue Home’.
(2) There is sufficient information here to warrant that a proper investigation be conducted into these allegations.
In the event that (1) be GDG’s response, it would then be up to Chanti and Chhork, with me acting as their advocate and advisor, to decide whether or not to lodge a formal complaint with ACFID. If the latter course of action is decided upon (2) this will constitute the first time, in five years, that anyone has taken Chanti and Chhork’s allegations seriously. If it takes GDG a month to conduct a thorough investigation, I am sure that Chanti and Chhork will be happy with yet another delay.
 |
Chanti has a stall at the river's edge selling snacks, fruit, drinks and cigarettes.
|
If Geoff Armstrong decides that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a thorough investigation he will also need to acknowledge that the GDG’s assessment and monitoring processes need to be reviewed to guarantee that neither he nor GDG are placed in this position again. There is no shame in admitting that improvements can be made in the delivery of aid. More importantly, improved assessment and monitoring processes would guarantee that no members of an impoverished family anywhere in the world, reliant in any way on the good intentions of a GDG-funded NGO, have to wait until someone such as myself stumbles upon them and offers to act as their advocate. The Global Development Group needs its own advocate – someone who acts independently of the assessment and monitoring process and who represents the recipients of aid. Such an advocate would have picked up the problems inherent in GDG;s assessment and monitoring processes years ago.
 |
Chanti and Chhork are only allowed to see Rosa and Chita for 2 hours per months; 24 hours a year. With no legal right to do so, Citipointe church refuses to return Rosa and Chita to their family
|
In copying this letter to others who may be interested in this matter, I am taking my cue from the following statement on the ACFID website:
“Transparent and open complaints processes help to promote confidence in the Code of Conduct and its self-regulatory effectiveness.”
In the event that it does prove necessary to lodge a formal complaint with ACFID there will can no doubt in any interested party’s mind but that GDG has been provided with ample opportunities to resolve this matter with the co-operation of Chanti, Chhork and myself, as their advocate.
best wishes
James Ricketson
 |
Vanna keeps the area in front of Chanti's staff spotlessly clean - sweeping up rubbish four or five times a day
|
No comments:
Post a Comment