 |
| In July 2008 Citipointe conducted a prayer meeting and singalong for kids and their materially poor parents down by the Bassac River in central Phnom Penh. I filmed, not quite knowing what was going on at the time. Chita is in the centre of the frame, Rosa just a little behind her right shoulder. |
Ms Sam Mostyn
President
Australian Council for
International Development
19th Feb. 2014
Dear Ms Mostyn
When I first wrote a little over
a week ago, relying on the ACFID website’s accuracy, I believed Dr Burgmann was
the President. I was wrong, but then so is your website!
To bring you up to speed, this is
what I wrote to Dr Burgmann on 11th Feb.
Dear Dr Burgmann
I am writing in relation to an Australian NGO in Cambodia by the
name of the ‘SHE Rescue Home’. The NGO, administered by Brisbane-based
Citipointe church, is in receipt of funding from the Global Development Group -
a member of ACFID. From what I read on the ACFID website, both GDG and the ‘SHE
Rescue Home’ are bound by the ACFID Code of Conduct.
As my attached letter of 8th Feb to the Directors of
GDG makes clear, (along with my letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs,
dated 10th Feb) it is my contention (and I have ample evidence to
support it) that the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ is not only in serious breach of ACFID’s
Code of Conduct but that the church-run NGO is engaged in human rights abuses
of a kind that would, if perpetrated in Australia, see its staff in court
facing serious kidnapping-related criminal charges.
To be specific: In mid 2008 Citipointe church illegally removed
the two eldest daughters of materially poor Cambodian parents from their
family. For five years the parents, Chanti and Chhork, have been asking the
church to return their daughters – Rosa and Chita. Citipointe refuses to do so
or to provide any evidence at all to anyone that its actions in removing the
girls and holding them is in accordance with Cambodian law. My attempts, on
behalf of Chanti and Chhork, to have their daughters returned to them this past
five years are to be found, in some detail, on the following blog:
http://citipointechurch.blogspot.com/
I have no reason to believe that the GDG is aware that
Citipointe has illegally removed and detained the two daughters of a materially
poor Cambodian family. Indeed, I see no way that the GDG could be aware –
unless the church were to make known to a GDG project assessor/monitor the
circumstances surrounding the removal of these two children. Since an NGO breaking Cambodian law and
abrogating the human rights of poor Cambodians is not likely to admit to the
fact, how can GDG or ACFID be sure which NGOs are abiding by the Code of
Practice and which are not?
If Citipointe has made no
mention of the serious allegations that have been made against the church over
a period of five years, backed up by lots of evidence, might there be a problem
with the ACFID concept of self-regulation that needs to be addressed? If Citipointe church can break Cambodian law
and breach the fundamental human rights of materially poor Cambodians with
impunity, how many other GDG/ACFID projects worldwide are being compromised in
the same way? The problem here is not just aid money wasted or aid money being
used to abrogate the human rights of recipients of such aid in third world
countries but the imprimatur of approval that GDG and ACFID provide fraudulent
NGOs. They can state, in public, “Our activities have been monitored and assessed
by the GDG in accordance with the ACFID code of conduct and we passed with
flying colours.” Unless they have done their homework well and discovered that
there is no independent assessment or monitoring process, the recipient of this
message (a journalist, say) might be inclined to ask no more questions, to look
no further and to arrive at the conclusion that the complaints of Chanti and
Chhork (in this instance) have no merit.
As anyone involved in the delivery of foreign aid knows,
Cambodia is awash with fraudulent NGOs. Given the lack of any rule of law, the
prevalence of corruption (Cambodia is rated one of the most corrupt countries
in the world) pretty well anyone can set up an NGO here and raise money to
‘rescue’ someone – children and ‘victims of human trafficking’ being the
favourite. (No NGOs are interested in rescuing old men and women who must beg
and search through rubbish to survive!)
There is no Cambodian government body that is engaged in serious
and effective monitoring and effectiveness of NGOs. And there is no body within
the NGO community in Cambodia in a position to check an NGO’s bona fides,
assess or monitor the work it does. Or
the work it purports to do? In the case of Citipointe, what the church actually
does bears little relationship to what it says it does. The end result is that
both GDG and ACFID are, unknowingly I am sure, complicit in the church’s human
rights abuses.
With hundreds of millions of foreign aid dollars up for grabs it
is unsurprising that fraudulent NGOs set up shop here (I am in Cambodia) and
tell GDG and, by extension, ACFID, what
they want to hear – knowing full well that they will never be independently
assessed or monitored. If there is no-one within either GDG or ACFID to ask the
right questions or insist on viewing documents pertaining to the legality of
the NGOs’ activities, there is a huge incentive for fraudulent NGOs to do
pretty much what they please – with little chance that their illegal or
fraudulent activities will be exposed.
This is the case with Citipointe church – whose ‘SHE Rescue Home’ has
been in receipt of GDG funds for five years without ever once having to
demonstrate that the church has a legal right to be holding Rosa and Chita in
its care and contrary to the express wishes of their parents.
If you doubt the veracity of this statement, ask Citipointe
today to forward to you whatever agreements and contracts the church has
entered into with Chanti and Chhork or with whatever Cambodian government
department Citipointe claims has provided the church with a legal right to hold
the girls. This is a task that could be achieved by Citipointe with the
composition of a brief email with a few attachments. Much less than half an
hours work. Citipointe will not comply with ACFID’S wishes in this, or with
GDG’s. Nor will it supply such evidence of the legality of its removal of Rosa
and Chita to Cambodia’s leading human rights NGO, LICADHO, or to the girls’
parents Chanti and Chhork. Or to myself as a legally appointed advocate for
Chanti and Chhork.
Let me give you a concrete example of how ACFID can,
unwittingly, be involved in the illegal removal of children from their
families. All research suggests that 75% of the children in Cambodian
‘orphanages’ are not orphans. 75% of the children in Cambodian ‘orphanages’
have at least one parent alive. Even if they have no mum and dad the remaining
25% will have uncles, aunts and grandparents (an extended family and community)
who could, but for their extreme poverty, take care of them.
If 75% of the children in ‘orphanages’ in Cambodia are not
orphans, it stands to reason that around 75% of the orphanages in this country
should close down. Despite many calls for this to happen, it has not, and it
will not. The orphanage business is a profitable one and poorly paid Cambodian
government officials can readily be encouraged to turn a blind eye to the many
scams that occur within the ‘orphanage’ business.
Are either or both GDG and ACFID providing funding to sham
‘orphanages’ in Cambodia? How would you know if you were? Or, to put it another
way, how easy would it be for those who run such ‘orphanages’ to deceive both
GDG and ACFID given the lack of independent monitoring and assessment of the
NGOs’ activities? I can identify two Australian NGO recipients of
tax-deductible funding that have received the ACFID seal of approval and that
are in the business of ‘rescuing’ children and providing no assistance at all
to the families or communities from which the children came – in a dynamic
almost identical to the one that led to Citipointe taking control of the lives
of Rosa and Chita.
I will not identify them here but would be happy to pass on the
information I have to anyone within the GDG or ACFID who might be interested.
Lest I have created the opposite impression, I admire the work
done by GDG and ACFID. However, I am
simultaneously aware that there are many fraudulent, ineffective and
incompetent NGOs working in the field. It concerns me that, as a result or poor
or non-existent assessment and monitoring processes, both GDG and ACFID may be
funneling Australian tax-payer dollars into the coffers of NGOs who do not
adhere to the ACFID code of conduct, who break the laws of their host country
with impunity and which practice human rights abuses of the kind that I allege
Citipointe church is engaged in.
 |
| In this sequence of CHANTI'S WORLD Chita and Rosa join the other children in prayer - led by women whom I later found out to be representatives of Citipointe church. |
On 17th Feb. I received an email from Chris Adams that read:
Dear Mr. Ricketson,
Please find attached a letter from
ACFID which acknowledges receipt of your complaint against the Global
Development Group and outlines next steps in the complaints handling process.
Complaints against the Code of Conduct are dealt with by the Code of Conduct
Committee which is made up of an independent Chair, six representatives elected
by ACFID’s membership and three appointed functional specialists. Please
also note that Dr. Meredith Burgmann stepped down as President of ACFID at the
AGM in October last year and has been replaced by Sam Mostyn.
Regards,
Chris Adams
I responded to Chris immediately,
before reading the letter he had attached:
Dear Chris
Many thanks for this response to my
letters.
I have not yet made an official
complaint against the Global Development Group and I hope that I will not have
to.
It is my belief, at present, that GDG
has not, to date, been aware of the manner in which Rosa and Chita were removed
from their parents in mid 2008. This certainly points to a problem with GDG's
assessment and monitoring processes. However, if Citipointe church has not
revealed to GDG that for five years Chanti and Chhork have been trying to get
their daughters returned to their care, then the Global Development Group bears
no responsibility for what has occurred - other than that its monitoring and
assessment processes should have picked it up at some point in the past five
years.
My primary concern today, this week,
is to get Rosa and Chita back in the care of their family.
As I have written already, if
Citipointe had a legal right in 2008 to remove Rosa and Chita from their
family, the church should be able to provide evidence of this to funding
partner GDG in the form of contracts or agreements with relevant Cambodian
government departments. These could be scanned and attached to an email in the
next hour. If GDG were to make this request of Citipointe and the church
refused to supply these documents, GDG can draw its own conclusions and respond
accordingly. If GDG refuses to ask this question of Citipointe it is, from now
on, complicit through its silence, in Citipointe's modus operandi in
Cambodia.
I do not believe at this point that
GDG was aware of my allegations regarding Citipointe and that the NGO will now,
and with the utmost haste, insist on answers to questions from the church.
In the interests of transparency I
will copy this to the Global Development Group.
Within the next couple of hours I
will publish online my third letter to the Global Development Group. I am in my
hotel room in Phnom Penh with Chanti and Chhork and available to meet with
representatives of GDG at an hours notice. I remain available for a telephone
conversation with GDG also.
best wishes
 |
| After the prayer meeting and singalong, food parcels were handed out to the children |
On reading the attached letter from ACFID I felt it appropriate to make it quite clear that I did not wish to make a formal complaint just yet. I wrote again to Chris Adams:
Dear Chris
I have not yet lodged a formal complaint with ACFID and,
as I mentioned in my email earlier today. I hope that I do not need to.
I would have thought, in a situation such as this, that
the logical first step for ACFID to take would be to ask one very simple
question of the Global Development Group:
"Up until you received Mr Ricketson's 8th Feb letter,
was the Global Development Group aware of the allegations that have been made
about the 'SHE Rescue Home's' illegal removal and detention of Rosa and Chita
from their family in 2008?"
If the answer to this question is 'no', then clearly:
(a) Citipointe church has not revealed this fact during
the assessment and monitoring process conducted by GDG and
(b) GDG's assessment and monitoring processes are ill
equipped to obtain certain (and highly relevant) information from funding
partners such as the 'SHE Recue Home' if they do not want to share this
information.
If Citipointe has lied to GDG (a sin of commission) or
simply did not inform GDG about the allegations re SHE (a sin of omission) GDG
cannot be blamed for this. There is no need for an investigation. What is
required is that GDG implement whatever changes are necessary to its assessing
and monitoring processes to see to it that funding partners cannot keep GDG in
the dark about allegations as serious as mine.
For ACFID to initiate an investigation on my behalf when I
have not requested one is to jump the gun somewhat! It places me in an
adversarial position with GDG when there is, as yet, no evidence that GDG was
aware of my allegations until a week or so ago.
It is a matter of some concern to me that GDG seems not to
have requested, as I suggested, that Citipointe provide copies of documents
relevant to GDG that bear witness to the legality of the church's actions this
past five years.
Please do not initiate any investigation on my behalf
until I request it.
It is now the end of the business day in Australia on 17th
Feb. No-one from GDG has availed themselves of the opportunity to call me on
the telephone or to meet with the parents of Rosa and Chita - Chanti and
Chhork.
Please excuse me for belabouring the point, but I have
audio-visual evidence and other evidence of the allegations I have made and
would be happy to share these with any representative of GDG if, with the
appropriate good will, the NGO is interested in resolving this matter on the
basis of indisputable facts and evidence.
I have also started to publish my correspondence with GDG
on my own blog - visited by a substantially greater number of people than my
'Citipointe blog':
 |
| Food parcels for everyone |
When I had time, later in the day, I accessed ACFID’S ‘Complaints Handling’ document and wrote again to Chris Adams.
Dear Chris
I have read the ACFID Code of Conduct Complaints Handling document online and am familiar
with its contents.
The most
striking thing about the ‘Complaints Handling’ process is that because no-one
is able to make an oral submission, the voice of the most important
stakeholders in any complaint that may be laid – the parents of the girls
removed by Citipointe – will not and cannot be heard. Chanti and Chhork can
neither read nor write and, it seems, no-one from ACFID will speak with them –
not even on the telephone? Is this correct?
Chanti and
Chhork did, through an interpreter, manage to prepare the attached document for
the court last month. It is in Khmer. Would it be possible for such a document
to be included for ACFID’S consideration in the event that a complaint is made?
And what about footage that I shot in
July 2008 that is relevant to this matter? More than 99% of the footage I have
shot this past 19 years (several hundred hours) is of no relevance to the
matter in hand. However, a small part of the remaining 1% is relevant – most
particularly (a) the footage I shot on the day that Citipointe recruited
children down by the Bassac River in July 2008, (b) the footage I shot in
Chanti and Chhork’s home in July 2008 at the time that Chanti signed a document
she could not read in which she stated that she was homeless (c) the footage I
have of the family’s capacity to support itself at the same level that the
majority of poor Cambodian families support themselves and (d) evidence that
Citipointe church has deliberately set about alienating Rosa and Chita from
their family’s Buddhist religion and forced them to adopt Citipointe’s version
of the Christian faith. This footage speaks eloquently in support of the
allegations I have made against Citipointe. Would an ACFID investigating
committee be interested in viewing this footage?
As for the ACFID statement that the
“rules of evidence do not apply”, is this a reference to the strictly legal
definition of rules of evidence? It is not being suggested here, I hope, that
Citipointe will not need to provide ACFID with evidence that the church had a
legal right to remove Rosa and Chita from their family in 2008? If this is the
case, the most pertinent information will be missing from any investigation
that may take place. How can ACFID investigate allegations such as mine without
placing them up against evidence that either refutes my allegations (contracts/agreements)
or, by their absence, suggests that my allegations have merit?
If you could clarify just what and
what not is considered to be ‘evidence’ of the kind that ACFID considers
relevant, I would greatly appreciate it.
best wishes
 |
| Chanti receives her food parcel from Citipointe |
I have, to date, received no answer from Chris to the questions I asked in this last email, two days ago. I would appreciate it if you could ask Chris, or whoever the appropriate person is within ACFID if Chris is on leave or otherwise unavailable, to answer them. I do not wish to initiate an investigation without being aware of the parameters within which such would take place. The most important question is: “Will the voices of the parents whose children were removed (‘stakeholders’ to use NGO terminology’) be represented in any way?”
The next most important question, given that the Global Development
Group has no apparent interest in the evidence I have that is relevant, whether
ACFID has any interest?
In the interest of transparency I am publishing all of my
correspondence with the Global Development Group online - commencing at:
best wishes
James Ricketson
Ms
Sam Mostyn
President
Australian Council for
International Development
19th Feb. 2014
Dear Ms Mostyn
At almost the same instant
that I sent my letter to you this morning, I received an email from Samantha
Major of the Global Development Group that reads:
Hi James,
I have forwarded on all correspondence to the Executive
Director who is still travelling overseas at the moment. He will respond when
he returns – about the 24th February.
Kind regards,
Samantha Major
I am placing this on record and
publishing my correspondence online because experience has taught me that this
is the only way to avoid confusion further down the track when a different
version of what has occurred can be used to obfuscate. As I have mentioned already, I am both making
a film and writing a book entitled CHANTI’S WORLD and it is imperative that my
facts be 100% correct and not open to challenge by those who may have a vested
interest in obfuscation.
I wrote back to Samantha immediately:
Dear Samantha
I find it absurd that an NGO that disburses $25 million a
year in Australian tax-deductible aid, that has a board of directors, a large
staff and three staff based in Phnom Penh has only one person who is able to
ask Citipointe church to provide GDG with an answer to one question. What if
the matter about which I am writing concerned a tsunami, an earthquake or some
disaster in which lives were at stake? Is GDG structured in such a way that
when Geoff is away no questions can be asked or answered?
I see no evidence at all that the Global Development Group
is interested in facts, in evidence, in the existence or non-existence of
contracts or agreements, in the audio-visual evidence I have or of speaking
with Rosa and Chita's parents. I have been around NGOs in Cambodia for long
enough to sense that the wagons are circling and that any and every attempt
necessary will be made by GDG to protect Citipointe's 'SHE Rescue Home' -
not because the evidence that GDG uncovers (if it bothers to ask for it!)
absolves the church of guilt but because GDG will not want to admit, in public,
that its monitoring and assessment processes are grossly inadequate and leave
the way open for any NGO that wishes to do so to abrogate the terms and spirit
ACFID Code of Conduct.
Nonetheless, it will be interesting on or shortly after
24th Feb, to read Geoff's responses to my many questions. Shortly afterwards I
will provide GDG and ACFID with the facts and evidence that he (and GDG) should
have taken into account before clearing Citipointe church of any wrongdoing.
I have already forwarded to you a
copy of the statement Chanti and Chhork made to the court on 2nd Jan. The copy
was in Khmer. You can have it translated. Below is the rough translation I have
had made. If either the Global Development Group or ACFID were interested in
the testimony of the parents whose children this is the story that Chanti and
Chhork would tell.
best wishes
Given that the Global Development Group seems determined to move
at a glacial pace (it is just as well that it is not a life-threatening
emergency awaiting Geoff’s return!) would it be possible, within the ACFID
charter, for you or the relevant person within ACFID to request of Citipointe,
today, that the church provide you with copies of all the relevant documents
that speak to the question of the legality of Citipointe’s actions in removing
Rosa and Chita in 2008?
If it is possible for ACFID to ask this question, could ACFID
also request that Citipointe provide Chanti and Chhork with copies of these
documents. They have been requesting them for five years, as have I as their
legally appointed advocate. I am working on the presumption that ACFID believes
that the parents of children removed from their care by an Australian NGO have
a right to know (a) why they were removed and (b) in accordance with what legal
processes they were removed – given that the removal was contrary to the
express wishes of the parents and an abrogation of the verbal agreement made
with both them and myself in July 2008.
I have attached just one photo (also to be found on my blog).
This photo was given to Chanti and
Chhork a few months after Citipointe had informed them that the church would
keep Rosa and Chita until they were 18 and that during the ensuing decade their
visitation rights to their daughters would be 2 hours per month or 24 hours per
year. The photo of Rosa holding out a silver cross for the photographer speaks
volumes about what is wrong, very wrong, with Citipointe church. In Australia
Pastor Leigh Ramsey would be facing serious charges in a court of law for
tricking a mother into giving up her daughters. In Cambodia such actions are
not only possible because the government here is both incompetent and corrupt
but because, at the very least, the assessment and monitoring processes of the
Global Development Group are hopelessly inadequate.
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment