Friday, February 28, 2014

# 16 Seventh letter to Global Development Group Board, dated 27th Feb 2014 (2nd letter of the day)


This was my second letter of the day to the Global Development Group board. Its refusal to answer any questions suggested to me that it was only  matter of time before GDG got in some serious spin doctors (affordable with a $25 million budget) or I got a letter from a lawyer. I was keen to have everything on record, in sequence, before something happened that would prevent me from continuing with this blog.


Directors of the Global Development Group Board
Unit 6, 734 Underwood Road
Rochedale, QLD 4123                                                                                                

27th Feb 2014

Dear    David James Pearson, Geoffrey Winston Armstrong
Ofelia (fe) Luscombe, Alan Benson, David Robertson

As another business day draws to an end in Sydney and after another day of waiting with Chanti and Chhork for someone from GDG to talk with them it seems clear that the Global Development Group has decided that the best way to deal with Chanti and Chhork is to ignore them. I believe that GDG’s unquestioning support of Citipointe church in this matter is a serious error in judgment and raises a whole host of questions about the organization of whose board you are members.

There are a few sentences in Geoff Armstrong’s letter to me of 25th Feb that I would have thought would set alarm bells ringing for the GDG board. Here they are:

“There are legal issues here and personal issues and neither Global Development Group, DFAT, or ACFID can resolve these. You have no complaint that can be made except in the courts and legal process.” Please do not respond or contact us further in regards to this matter. Please speak to the authorities in Cambodia. 

Geoff’s suggestion that my complaints (actually, Chanti and Chhork’s complaints) can only be dealt with by “the authorities in Cambodia” is either disingenuous or displays an extraordinary level of naivete on his part.

The same applies for his suggestion that  Chanti and Chhork can have their matter heard in a Cambodian court that will reach a verdict untainted by corruption.

Can Geoff really be unaware that the judiciary in Cambodia is notoriously corrupt; that verdicts reached by the courts have little to do with facts or evidence but with how much money has been paid by whom to reach the desired verdict? I have, myself, been approached several times now by police who have told me that they  could have Rosa and Chita returned to them if I was prepared to give them money. As a matter of principle I have not gone down this path.

Has Geoff been travelling the world as a GDG Ambassador for many years now and not gleaned that corruption is rife in 3rdworld countries such as Cambodia? Does he really believe that poor parents such as Chanti and Chhork (regardless of which 3rd world country they come from) do not have the financial resources to take their grievances to court; to engage in ‘legal process’? Is Geoff unaware that a cashed up NGO, anywhere in the third world, is in a position to pay whatever is necessary to the relevant person in a government department to get official ‘permission’ to do as they please?

Is the Global Development Group concept of ‘due diligence’, of accountability limited to having the imprimatur of some government official to validate that an NGO is behaving appropriately?  If so, this goes some way to explaining how it is that sham orphanages in Cambodia (some funded by GDG) can continue to operate despite the fact that 75% of the ‘orphans’ have at least one parent alive. If one of the parents that make up this 75% were in a position to know that they could make a complaint, if they were in a position to pursue the legal court of action Geoff is suggesting, the relevant NGO would have no trouble at all in Cambodia in obtaining a document giving it the NGO the ‘legal’ right to hold the child. And the Global Development Group would accept this fraudulently obtained ‘legal document’ at face value without even speaking with the parent who is claiming his or her child has, in effect, been kidnapped by the NGO! What an extraordinary state of affairs – zero accountability on the part of any GDG-funded NGO that is prepared to pass some of GDG’s tax-deductible dollars onto a corrupt government official! How often does this happen? Is there any way that Global Development Group would ever know? And would GDG care? In the case of Chanti and Chhork’s allegations, backed up with evidence, it seems not!

In this instance the question of the legality of Citipointe’s actions comes down to questions of contractual law. Geoff claims that GDG is in possession of copies of the relevant contracts that give Citiopointe the right to detain Rosa and Chita contrary to their parents wishes, until they are 18 years old, and yet he refuses to provide Chanti and Chhork with copies of these? Do you, members of the board, believe that this is right; that it is appropriate? Do you believe that Geoff suggesting that Chanti and Chhork engage the legal system of Cambodia to sort out their problem is the appropriate course of action for impoverished parents when GDG has in its possession documents capable or resolving the legal question of Rosa and Chita’s removal in 2008?

Let me, here, provide you with another GDG-funded Cambodian NGO that seems, on the basis of all the evidence available to date, to be in breach of the ACFID Code of Conduct. I have, for the time being, redacted the name of the NGO and those with whom I communicated who represent the NGO in receipt of GDG funding.

Senator, the Hon Bob Carr
Foreign Minister

28th  March 2013

Dear Senator Carr

Following on from my letter to you dated 11th March.

On the AusAID website is to be found the following:

“The Australian public and the recipients of Australian aid have a right to know that Australian aid funds are spent effectively, achieve real results and help people to overcome poverty.”

Citipointe church is not, to the best of my knowledge, a recipient of AusAID monies. However XXX is. One of the young women in my documentary CHANTI’S WORLD lived in a XXX refuge for four years and made certain claims about the organization that I am currently trying to get a response to from XXX.

“With good information, tax payers and aid recipients can hold governments accountable and the risk of corruption is reduced. The Australian government is committed to improving the transparency of the Australian aid program…

To give effect to this commitment AusAID will:

- be transparent about Australia’s international development programs.”

In the interests of transparency, I quote here what I have written to the CEO of XXX on 23rd. March:

Dear XXX

I am a filmmaker working in Cambodia on a documentary entitled CHANTI’S WORLD, for which filming is almost completed. CHANTI’S WORLD is, in part, a record of the life of one young woman growing up on the streets of Phnom Penh over a period of 18 years – from age 9 to age 27. It is also about other poor families I have got to know over the years and the world they live in, including one family living and working, until a few years ago, in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump.

One young woman in CHANTI’S WORLD, whose family I have known for close to a decade, was resident in a XXX refuge for four years. She has made certain comments and observations about XXX on film – most particularly in relation to her access to her parents during those four years.

As I am sure you are aware, not everything in Cambodia is as it appears to be. It is not always easy to separate truth from fiction designed, by the speaker, to achieve a particular end.

For both legal and ethical reasons it is imperative that CHANTI’S WORLD be factually accurate  and I would like here to extend an invitation to XXX to have a representative of the organization appear in my documentary to present XXX’s thoughts and feelings about modern day ‘slavery’ and the efforts XXX puts into reintegration of those in the NGO’s care back into their families and communities.

XXX’s responses to my questions would help me clarify whether what this young woman has told me on film is true or not and for XXX to present an alternative point of view to the claims she makes…

best wishes

XXX got back to me almost immediately. She was not well but passed my query on to XXX, who wanted to know more:

Dear XXX

The young woman in question claims that during her four years with XXX she was only allowed to see her family for two hours each year and that the same applied for all the other girls at XXX.

From what she said I got the impression that the two hours per annum limit for family visits was XXX policy and I would just like to get this clarified.

She told me also that XXX forced her to go to church (she named the church) despite her being a Buddhist and not wishing to become a Christian.

cheers

XXX’s response was swift:

James,

If its true its unfortunate and an apology is warrented. Despite good intentions we make mistakes sometimes and need to set things right.  

But neither of the issues raised is consistent with our policies, practices or the experience of other clients. There are extreme cases where access to the parents is severely limited or that re-integration to some sort of a kinship relationship is not eventually possible. But its rare.  

But we can't engage a conversation with a third party about a specific client without their consent and them being of age to consent. 

We can provide publicly available information on our policies.

If you're in PNP we can catch up for coffee sometime.  You're project sounds interesting. 

XXX

XXX was, up to this point, living up to the claims it makes on the organization’s website:

“Receiving feedback and responding to complaints is an important way for XXX  to demonstrate accountability to its supporters.
 XXX is committed to responding appropriately to feedback and complaints about the organisation’s work or practices.

I wrote back to XXX:

Dear XXX

After 18 years experience with Cambodia I have learnt to take
everything I am told with a grain of salt. I have been lied to many
times and am reminded of what I was told by an American man married to a Cambodian woman when first I came here in 1995: "All Cambodians lie all the time. They don’t do it to hurt you but to help themselves."

Whilst I do not believe that all Cambodians lie all the time I do keep this in the back of my mind - especially when it comes to poor people who may want to get me to part with some of my (limited) money.

Here is what this young woman told me:

At age 15 she was deemed to be 'at risk' and was taken into care by
XXX. I have known her family well since 2007 and have seen no
indication that her parents (who have three other younger daughters) are anything other than hard-working poor people. This young woman was NOT a victim of Human Trafficking.

Whilst she was with XXX, she claims, she was only allowed to see her family once a year for two hours. She claims that this was the case for all the girls in XXX she knew. From what she said such limited visiting rights seemed (and I stress 'seemed') to be official XXX policy.

When she turned 19 XXX gave her 20 pounds of rice, sent her on her way and have provide her with no assistance since that time or shown any interest in her welfare. This is what she claims.

She claims also that she was forced by XXX to attend Christian
services despite her being a Buddhist.

Could you clarify just what XXX's policy is regarding the visiting
rights of children with their families? Do children and their families have regular access to each other? If so, how often?

And could this young woman be right in saying that when she turned 19 and was provided with a 20 pound sack of rice as a parting gift that XXX took no further interest in her welfare?

I did not receive a response from Talmage to this email and so, a couple of days later, followed it up with:

Dear XXX and XXX

I wonder if you could provide me with “publicly available information on our policies” in relation to the visitation rights of children in the care of XXX with their parents. At present I have a quite definitive statement from a former XXX resident that despite have never been a victim of Human Trafficking or at risk of being trafficked by her parents she was allowed to see her parents only once a year for 2 hours. Is this possible in terms of XXX policy? She claims that the two hours per year visitation right applied to all of the girls she was in care with. Is this possible or, to be more precise, is it XXX policy that such visits are severely limited. This young woman claims that XXX gave her no choice but to take part
in Citipointe church activities. Is this possible? Indeed, is it the
case that all in XXX’s care must take part in Christian activities despite their being Buddhists? Finally, this young woman claims that when she reached the age of 19 she was sent back into the world with nothing other than a certain facility with the English language and a 20 pound bag of rice and that since that time XXX has shown no interest at all in her welfare.

If this young woman has spun me a yarn, for whatever reason, I would like to know this before including what she has told me in my documentary.

best wishes

I did not receive a response from XXX or XXX to this last email, so tried again a few days later:

Dear XXX and XXX

You do have written, on the XXX website:

“Receiving feedback and responding to complaints is an important way for XXX to demonstrate accountability to its supporters. XXX is committed to responding appropriately to feedback and complaints about the organisation’s work or practices.”

My previous emails have not constituted a complaint but merely a request for information - without which I have only the young woman's account of her experience of XXX.

Without knowing what XXX's policies are vis a vis the opportunities that parents of children in XXX's care have to see their children, this young woman's account will go unchallenged.

cheers

My last email to XXX read:

Dear XXX and XXX

In the interests of accountability and transparency, both of which are espoused by XXX, could you please let me know what XXX's policies are regarding families and children's visitation rights with each other? Are they limited to two hours per year as a matter of policy? If they are not, can you let me know how often girls in XXX's care get to see their families?

best wishes

I received no response. The trail has gone dead! Like Citipointe, XXX has decided that the best way to deal with questions such as the ones I have asked is to ignore them. The presumption, I presume, is that as a mere filmmaker and blogger I can be safely ignored. We shall see!

On the AusAID website can also be found the following as an objective:

(To) publish detailed information on AusAID’s work – our policies, plans, processes, the results of Australian aid activities and our evaluations – on AusAID’s website to explain where Australia’s money is spent and its impact on reducing poverty.
Welcome public feedback to help us further improve the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of the aid program and achieve better value for money.

I cannot find, anywhere on the AusAID website any information regarding how much of Australian tax-payer money has been given to XXX or regarding how effective XXX has been in its activities.

In the interests of providing feedback, please note the following:

For 18 years I have been documenting the lives of various families in Cambodia. One of these families had a 15 year old daughter who spent four years living in a XXX refuge. She was not a victim of Human Trafficking but was deemed by  XXX to be ‘at risk’. I know this family well and have seen no evidence at all that this young woman was at risk of either prostituting herself or of being sold into prostitution by her parents. That I have seen no evidence does not, of course, mean that there is no evidence. However, if there is evidence, is  XXX under any obligation to share it with AusAID – a body that is distributing Australian tax-payer dollars to help poor Cambodian families such as the one this young woman is a part of? (It is worth noting that this young woman, in March 2013, has younger sisters working on the streets of Phnom Penh (and hence ‘at risk’) in order to supplement the family’s meagre income and to pay their school fees. Why is XXX not helping these young girls? Why are no recipients of AusAID helping these young girls and dozens of others like them?)

Does AusAID require of NGOs such as XXX that they provide evidence that the girls in their care that are deemed to be ‘at risk’ are in fact at risk and are not merely the daughters of poor parents who have been conned into placing their thumb prints on a document that they are then told is a ‘contract’ they have entered into with the NGO? XXX could, for instance, be obliged by AusAID to provide a statutory declaration for each girl in its care stating what the circumstances were (are) that led them to be in care and what visitation rights the children had to their parents and vice versa. And AusAID could then check with a small sample of parents to discover if their experience as the recipients of Australian aid matches what XXX claims to be their experience. If there is no mechanism whereby consumers of aid can feed back directly to AusAID, how can AusAID ever be sure what impacts Australian aid is having on the lives of the very poor people the aid is supposedly helping? In the case of the young woman in question, AusAID to XXX has resulted in her seeing her parents and family only four times in four years – for two hours each time.  It has resulted in her being forced to attend Christian services run by Citipointe church. And it resulted in her being effectively denied any further assistance from AusAID when she turned 19.

Does AusAID believe that allowing girls only two hours with their families per annum is appropriate given  XXX’s stated aim of reintegrating the girls back into their families and communities? Does AusAID believe it appropriate that Australian tax-dollars are being used to force young Cambodian Buddhists to become Citipointe church Christians?

It is possible that what this young woman has told me, on film, is incorrect. It is possible that all the others who have told me (though not yet on film) that children in XXX’s care are alienated from their families, their communities, their Buddhist faith and their Cambodian culture are all playing fast and loose with the truth. It may be that this young woman is not telling the truth when she states that she was forced, despite being a Buddhist, to attend church services organized by Citipointe church. In the absence of a response from XXX to my questions, how am I to know precisely where the truth lies? Does AusAID?  Does AusAID care?

Given what AusAID writes about transparency and accountability on its website, does AusAID ever ask the kinds of questions I have asked of XXX – an NGO funded, in part, by the Australian tax-payer? If AusAID does ask such questions, am I, as a member of the media, allowed to know what the answers are? If AusAID does not ask such questions, how can Australians know whether their tax dollars are being spent to help poor families become self-sustaining or to institutionalize them, deny them access to their families (other than for 2 hours a year) and force them to become Christians – only to turf them back out onto the street when they turn 18 or 19 and no longer serve the fund-raising role they can play when young and cute and likely to open the hearts and wallets of donors and sponsors?

If what the young Cambodian woman has told me is true (and if not, why has XXX not contradicted her claims?) there is a problem at the heart of AusAID – a lack of the capacity to deal with feedback from aid recipients. Without transparency and accountability on the part of organizations such as XXX, the NGO can do pretty much what it likes – even if this results in the breaking up of Cambodian families in a way that is disturbingly similar to what occurred in Australia and which we now, as a nation, feel sufficiently ashamed of to have issued a public apology.

I believe that the questions raised in this and my letter of 11th Feb are important and require answers if AusAID is to remain true to its commitment to transparency and accountability.

best wishes

The NGO mentioned in this correspondence is in receipt of funds from the Global Development Group. Are the questions I raised with the then Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, of any concern to the Global Development Group Board?

best wishes

James Ricketson

No comments:

Post a Comment