 |
| Vanna, holding Chita and Rosa, and Chanti, in 2005 |
Directors of the Global Development Group Board
Unit
6
734
Underwood Road
Rochedale, QLD 4123
17th Feb 2014
Dear
David James Pearson
Geoffrey Winston Armstrong
Ofelia (fe) Luscombe
Alan Benson
David Robertson
It is now five days since I
supplied the Global Development Group with both my Cambodian telephone numbers;
five days since I suggested that representatives of GDG meet with me whilst I
am in Cambodia; five days since I suggested that GDG meet and talk with the
parents (Chanti and Chhork) of the girls that I allege Citipointe removed
illegally from their family. My phone has not rung. This does not appear to be
as matter that warrants the urgent attention
of the Global Development Group.
 |
| The family home, 2007 - a one room bamboo shack |
Chanti and Chhork are waiting in
Phnom Penh to speak with representatives of GDG and I have cancelled my flight
back to Australia and will wait with them until someone from GDG meets and
talks with them, answers our questions and either declares or withdraws its
support for Citipointe church’s actions.
I have started to publish my
letters to the Global Development Group, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and
ACFID online. I will continue to do so. I do not wish there to be any doubt, further
down the track, that I gave GDG every opportunity to distance itself from
Citipointe church and its illegal actions. If GDG decides that silence is the
best policy it will be up to viewers and readers to decide for themselves what
this silence suggests.
What level of funding does the
Global Development Group provide to the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ each year? If you
divide the sum provided by GDG to Citipointe by the number of girls resident at
the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ you will arrive at a dollar figure of the extent to which
GDG is sponsoring one child. If you multiply that by two, you will arrive at
the sum GDG gives to Citipointe church each year to keep Rosa and Chita resident
in the ‘SHE Rescue Home’. And absent
from their family, as they have been for half their lives now.
 |
| Chanti teaches Rosa to count in English. Chita looks on. 2007 |
GDG funding does not, of course,
take into account the revenue raised by Citipointe from other sponsors and
donors. Does GDG know, is it aware, does it care, how much money is raised by
Citipointe through sponsorships and donations by presenting Rosa and Chita and
other girls acquired by the church under similar circumstances as ‘victims of
human trafficking’? Is it of any concern to the Global Development Group that
there are girls in the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ who are not victims of anything other
than their parents’ poverty and of Citipointe church’s deceptive recruitment
practices?
Getting back to the question of
the extent to which, in dollar terms, GDG is supporting Rosa and Chita on an
annual basis. I am curious to know if this figure exceeds $3,600? If it does,
the Global Development Group is contributing to Citipointe double the sum of
money to keep Rosa and Chita resident in
SHE than it would cost GDG to support Chanti’s entire family (including
Rosa and Chita) in Prey Veng.
Let me repeat that, lest you
think I have made a typographical error: Chhork and Chanti’s annual income is
in the vicinity of $1,800. This is the amount it costs to feed and clothe the
family in any one year. This works out at $5 a day to support an entire family?
Yes, it is very difficult; sometimes close to impossible. Yes, the family
undergoes a financial crisis each time a member of it gets sick or in a bad
week when Chhork does not earn $5 a day driving his tuk tuk. Chanti and
Chhork’s family survives, however, as do hundreds of thousands of other
similarly poor Cambodian families. Ask each and every one of these impoverished
families if they would like some financial assistance from a GDG-funded NGO and
they would all respond, I think, with “Yes, please.” Tell them that GDG funding
would be contingent on giving up their eldest daughters to an NGO to live in
Phnom Penh and be brought up as Christians and how many of them would say yes?
 |
| Chanti, pregnant with Srey Ka, works as a cleaner in the Russian market while Chhork gets intermittent work in the construction industry. It is difficult to make ends meet but the family is living above the poverty line. |
The way around this recruitment
problem, for unscrupulous NGOs such as Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’, is to
trick and deceive materially poor parents such as Chanti and Chhork into giving
up their daughters. This, as I am sure you will be aware, is a tactic used by
brothel owners to recruit young girls from rural areas to work as prostitutes
in Phnom Penh. The recruitment dynamics are the same in both cases. However,
where the GDG, quite rightly, works to prevent the recruitment of young girls
into the sex trade, it appears to be either incapable of addressing (or not
interested in do so) the same recruitment processes when applied to an NGO such
as Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’.
If this is an unfair
representation of the Global Development Group, why has my phone not rung? Why
has there been no attempt made by anyone representing the Global Development
Group, to speak with Chanti and Chhork? Why has Peta Thomas not responded in
any way to the serious allegations I have made? If they are correct, and I have
the evidence to present to Peta and anyone else from GDG who is interested, GDG
has a very serious problem on its hands – its own complicity, through its
ineffective assessing and monitoring processes, in the illegal removal of girls
from their families.
 |
| Rosa in school in 2007. Chanti wants her daughters to have the education that she missed out on living on the streets as a child. |
Leaving aside any human rights
considerations GDG could fully support Rosa and Chita within their family,
(both nuclear and extended) and within the community for much less than it
costs to support them living in an institution. I am not suggesting that GDG or
any other NGO fully support a family such as Chanti and Chhork’s. This would
not help them become self-sufficient. It would only lead to a form of economic
dependence that is unhealthy for both the family and the country.
The problem here (one of many
problems) is that in the past five years not one dollar of the money the Global
Development Group has given to the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ has been used to help make
Chanti and Chhork’s family self-sufficient. Not one dollar! Is this an
appropriate use of the funding the Global Development Group provides to
Citipointe church? Is GDG even aware that this is the case? The lack of any
support at all to help Chanti and Chhork’s family become self-sufficient works
to the church’s advantage, however. By doing nothing to lift the family out of
poverty Citipointe can justify to itself and its funding partners (GDG amongst
others) in its decision not to return
Rosa and Chita to their family. However, despite Citipointe’s refusal to help,
and as a result of my own assistance, the family has been lifted out of extreme
poverty and the parents want their daughters back. And, as you would discover
if you spoke with Rosa and Chita, they want to be living with their family and
not in the ‘SHE Rescue Home’.
If there is no response from GDG
in the next 24 hours, no attempt made to meet with Chanti and Chhork, no
interest shown in the evidence I have of Citipointe’s illegal actions I will,
tomorrow, make a formal complaint to the Australian Council for International
Development about the GDG’s failure to adhere to the ACFID Code of Conduct.
best wishes
James Ricketson
For
reasons that will become apparent in subsequent correspondence, I did not make
a formal complaint to ACFID the following day. I will be publishing my
correspondence with ACFID later.
No comments:
Post a Comment