# 3 Third letter to Global Development Group board, dated 13th Feb, 2014

Chanti in 1995

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.”

Chanti in 2014

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?

Chita and Rosa in 2005

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.

Poppy and Chanti in 2014

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?

Srey Ka, Kevin and James. Kevin is the family clown. He is very reluctant to wear clothes. Ever! 

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.

Rosa, 2005

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!

Chhork, seen here with Poppy and Kevin is a very loving father. He does not drink. He does not gamble. As will be apparent in CHANTI'S WORLD, he is a model dad.The Global Development Group has no way of knowing this as the NGO's monitoring and assessment processes do not involve actually speaking with the recipients of aid provided by GDG!

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

Chanti in 1995

Chanti's first day at school, 1995.

# 2 Second letter to Global Development Group board, dated 12th Feb. 2014

Chanti and Chhork's family home (background) and front yard (foreground) with toilet block(grey building) to the right. The family tuk tuk is parked in the yard

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.

Looking from the front door down into the yard

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?

Chanti feeding Poppy, Srey Ka, James, Chhork and Kevin watch TV at night. 

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?

The family stops to buy a snack

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.)

Srey Ka is now the same age that Rosa was when Citipointe church removed her and Chita from the family. Srey Ka gets to see her sisters, during supervised visits, just a few times a year.

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 

# 1 First letter to Global Development Group board, dated 8th Feb, 2014

Chita, left, her mother Chanti (pointing) and Rosa, right during a rare home visit. Chita and Rosa were removed from their family illegally by Citipointe church's Cambodian NGO ('SHE Rescue Home)  in mid 2008. Citipinte  has refused, for five years, to provide Chanti and her husband Chhork with copies of any documents (agreements, contracts with relevant Cambodian government departments) supporting the church's legal right to hold these girls against their express wishes. The 'SHE Rescue Home' receives funding from the Global Development Group (GDG). My correspondence with GDG, all of it to be published  on this blog, speaks for itself of the failure of GDG to effectively assess and monitor the aid work being conducted by its aid partners. Can you be sure that the tax-deductible donation you make to the Global Development Group will not be used to support an NGO which breaks up families, breaks the laws of the country in which the NGO works and breaches the human rights of the very people you wish to help with your donation? How many other families like the one you will meet here in photos are being broken up by GDG-funded NGOs such as Citipointe with the tacit approval of the Global Development Group?

James Ricketson 

316 Whale Beach Road 

Palm Beach 2108 

Sydney, Australia

Directors of the Global Development Group Board 

Unit 6
734 Underwood Road
Rochedale, QLD 4123

8th Feb 2014

Dear David James Pearson, Geoffrey Winston Armstrong,

Ofelia (fe) Luscombe, Alan Benson and David Robertson

I am a filmmaker and journalist, in the final stages of producing a feature length documentary by the name of CHANTI’S WORLD – set in Cambodia. I am also writing a book by the same name. Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ features in both my documentary and book. The ‘SHE Rescue Home’ is also the recipient of funds from the DFAT approved Global Development Group. It is imperative that both my documentary and book be factually accurate. Hence this letter.

Chhork, far left, Chanti, at his side and three of their children in the front row - Srey Ka, Kevin and James. Chhork's father, in grey trousers, is second from the right. This is Chhork's sister's wedding.

The Global Development Group is described online as a:

“charity organization carrying out humanitarian projects with approved partners and providing aid to relieve poverty in a tangible way. We provide long term solutions through the provision of quality aid development projects in approved countries.”

It would appear, from what is written here, that Citipointe Church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ is an ‘approved partner’ of GDG? Is this so?

On your website GDG goes on to declare:

“Regular visits with our project partners – whether In- Country or Australian – are an important aspect of on-going two way communication with our project partners.”

Would it be fair to extrapolate from this that GDG has visited Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ many times.

Your website also declares that GDG places an:

“Emphasis on Project monitoring and evaluation making long term difference to nations.”

Has the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ been monitored and its programs assessed for their effectiveness? When did the most recent monitoring occur? Was the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ found to be effective in meeting the goals of the GDG?

GDG is a member of the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID) an organization that commits its members to:

“high standards of integrity and accountability.”

Given that the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ is a recipient of GDG funds, are you, as members of the GDG board, satisfied that Citipointe church administers the She Rescue Home in accordance with “high standards of integrity and accountability.”

Baby # 6, with her grandmother (Chanti's mother) Vanna. Vanna lost all 8 of her children to starvation and disease during the Khmer Rouge era. Chanti, born 7 years after the fall of the Khmer Rouge, is her only surviving child. She has been devastated by the loss of two of her granddaughters to Citipointe church

The Global Development Group website declares that GDG is:

“a signatory to the ACFID Code of Conduct, which provides standards on management, communication with the public and most importantly how funds are spent.”

Are you, as board members, satisfied that Citipointe abides by the ACFID Code of Conduct and with the way in which Citipointe spends the funds provided to the church by the GDG to administer the ‘SHE Rescue Home’?

Has Citipointe informed its partner (GDG) of the complaints I have been making for five years now about the illegal removal and detention of two girls from their family? If the church has deliberately withheld this information shouldn’t GDG’s assessment and monitoring processes reveal allegations as serious as the ones I have been making about the NGO?

How thorough is the assessment and monitoring of GDG supported NGOs and is the assessment and monitoring conducted by some independent body or by either the NGOs themselves or representatives of GDG who are not qualified to conduct such monitoring or assessing?

Chanti feeds Poppy as she, her mother and her other three children watch TV at home.

How much money does the Global Development Group provide on an annual basis? I imagine that this will be contained in GDG’s Annual Report. Could I please be provided with a copy of this report?

The GDG website describes the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ as:

“a holistic development project and after care shelter catering to the specific needs girls aged 5 – 16 who have been raped, prostituted, trafficked or at risk...SHE staff are committed to working holistically with the girls and their families to bring overall change to them, their community and the national of Cambodia by empowerment of the whole family unit. SHE works towards this through education and the alleviation of poverty with a family assistance program and micro-enterprise endeavours. The project’s goal, where possible, is the safe reintegration of the girls to their families and Khmer culture.”

Is the GDG board satisfied, based on its own monitoring and assessment processes, that this is a truthful and accurate description of the program undertaken by Citipointe church in Cambodia?

If the GDG board were to be provided with cogent evidence that Citipointe church is in breach of both the GDG code of conduct and that of the Australian Council for International Development, would GDG continue to provide funds to Citipointe church?

Chanti alongside the family's rice paddy.

Let me be more specific: If the GDG board were to be provided with evidence that Citipointe church had illegally removed two young Cambodian girls from their family in 2008 and has been detaining them against the express wishes of their parents for the past five and a half years, what action would you take? Would you seek from Citipointe a response to the allegations?

Allegations are, of course, easy to make. Allegations that are not backed up with evidence are just that – allegations.

For evidence pertaining to Citipointe church’s illegal removal of two girls from their family please visit the following blog:

http://citipointechurch.blogspot.com.au/

Poppy and Chanti in the family tuk tuk

You need not, indeed ought not, presume that anything I write in the blog is true, though a little research, a few questions and an interview with the parents of the kidnapped children will reveal that is it.

In order to form your own independent assessment of the truth or otherwise of my allegations you could start with one question to put to Citipointe church:

“Please provide the Global Development Group with copies of any agreements Citipointe has entered into with any Cambodian authorities that give the church a legal right to detain Yem Chanthy and Both Chhork’s daughters – Rosa and Chita – against the express wishes of their parents?”

This is a question that Chanti and Chhork have been asking for five years. This is a question I have been asking for five years, in my capacity as Chanti and Chhork’s legally appointed advocate. This is a question that has been asked by Cambodia’s leading human rights organization, LICADHO.

Citipointe refuses to answer this question. The church refuses to provide any documented proof that its actions in removing Rosa and Chita from the family in 2008 was legal. The church likewise refuses to provide any evidence that its actions in holding Rosa and Chita in Feb 2014 is legal.

Poppy and Chanti on the front steps leading into their home

In the interests of factual accuracy in both my documentary and book there are some other questions I would like to be provided with answers to:

- When did the GDG become partners with She rescue home. How did this process come about?

- Does GDG have any affiliation itself with a religious group, church etc?

- Is GDG aware that Chanti’s children are being denied the right to choose their own religious beliefs? Does GDG approve of such behavior on the part of an NGO in receipt of GDG funding?

- Is GDG aware that in 2013 the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ claimed online that the church had released 11 children back into the care of the families – the daughter of one such family claiming that SHE had bought the family pigs as her father and mother could not work. Why then, given that Chant and Chhork do work, do have a home, do have an income, are their daughters still being held by the church contrary to the express wishes of their parents?

- Given Citipointe church’s proven track record in deceit and the thinly veiled threats made against myself by Pastor Brian Mulheran (see blog) can anything Citipointe claims to be true be accepted at face value?

James

My concerns here are two-fold:

(1) If you discover, as I am sure you will if you do your homework, that Citipointe has no legal right to detain Rosa and Chita, there is clearly a problem with your assessment and monitoring processes.

(2) If the Global Development Group’s monitoring and assessment processes have failed to reveal that Citipointe church is, in effect, kidnapping children from impoverished Cambodian families and presenting them to potential donors and sponsors as ‘victims of human trafficking’, can GDG rest assured that similar scams are not being perpetrated by other NGO recipients of GDG funds? Or, to put it another way, are generous donors to the Global Development Group (with a DFAT imprimatur providing it with legitimacy) inadvertently supporting NGOs that violate the human rights of the very people they are supposed to be helping?

Given Citipointe’s declaration that the church is committed to “ the alleviation of poverty with a family assistance program and micro-enterprise endeavours” you might like to ask what assistance the church has provided to the family this past five and a half years? What ‘micro-enterprise endeavours’ the church has engaged in to help this family? The answer is not $1 in assistance in five years. Don’t take my word for it. Ask Citipointe. Ask Chanti and her husband. Ask the community in which Chanti and her family live.

Kevin

In relation to Citipointe’s declaration that “The project’s goal, where possible, is the safe reintegration of the girls to their families and Khmer culture,” ask the church to provide GDG with copies of any re-integration programs undertaken by the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ this past five years. You will find that there are none. And you will find also that Citipointe, whilst indoctrinating Rosa and Chita in the church’s own particular brand of the Christian faith, refuses to allow the girls to engage in any Khmer festivities or celebrations with their family or community.

The current cut of CHANTI’S WORLD ends with Rosa and Chita still detained by Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ – an NGO that receives funding from the DFAT approved Global Development Group. At present I am working on the presumption that the Global Development Group is unaware of the human rights abuses being perpetrated by Citipointe church.

Chhork, holding Kevin, Srey Ka and Chanti feeding Poppy

If the Global Development Group is not satisfied that Citipointe has a legal right to detain Rosa and Chita contrary to the wishes of their parents, I trust that it will publicly distance itself from Citipointe’s illegal activities in Cambodia and so not be tainted by its association with the church when CHANTI’S WORLD is completed and screened worldwide.

By the time you receive this letter I will be in Cambodia putting the finishing touches to my documentary, CHANTI’S WORLD. 

I can be contacted by email, however, at: 

jamesricketson@gmail.com

I look forward to receiving answers to the questions I have asked above. 

best wishes
James Ricketson 

Chanti learning how to drive the family tuk tuk