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