 |
| After I had left Phnom Penh in July 2008, Pastor Leigh Ramsey got Chanti and her mother, Vanna, to place their thumb prints on this document, pretending that the agreement Chanti was entering into was with LICADHO - a leading human rights organisation in Cambodia. Pastor Ramsey then told Chanti that Rosa and Chita would, on the basis of the 'contract' she had signed, remain in Citipointe's 'SHE Rescue Home' until they were 18 years old. |
Ms Sam Mostyn
President
Australian Council for
International Development
20th Feb. 2014
Dear Ms Mostyn
Chris Adams, of the ACFID Code of
Conduct Secretariat has, on your behalf, responded to my letter to you of 19th Feb.
In so doing he has failed to answer my questions – without which it is not
possible for me to know whether the making of a formal complaint to ACFID on
Chanti and Chhork’s behalf is worthwhile or a waste of time.
Chanti and Chhork have been let
down by so many organizations over the years that were, in theory, in a
position to help them. I do not want to see them endure more suffering if yet
another organization that should, by rights, be able to help get their
daughters returned to them, cannot. The
most important question is:
“In the event that
Chanti and Chhork proceed, through me, to make a complaint, will ACFID require
of the Global Development Group that it provide copies of all documents it has
acquired from Citipointe church relating to the legality of the church’s removal
of Rosa and Chita and their detention of the girls for five years during which
time Chanti and Chhork have repeatedly requested their return?”
If this question is not going to
be asked by ACFID, if ACFID is not in possession of the evidence most crucial
to determining where the truth lies in this matter, there no point in
conducting an investigation. And I will not recommend to Chanti and Chhork that
they go down this path. They have suffered enough. I do not want to see their hopes raised, yet
again, only to have them dashed – yet again.
Could you please, Ms Mostyn,
provide Chanti and Chhork, through me, with an answer to this question? I will
be meeting with them again today to discuss whether or not they should proceed
with a complaint in the event that the Global Development Group fails to deal
with adequately with the allegations I have made on their behalf in relation to
Citipoointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’.
Chris Adams has asked me, on your
behalf, to consider whether placing my questions to the Global Development
Group in the public domain is consistent with the principles of natural
justice. I fail to see how the asking of
questions in public of an NGO that disburses $25 million of tax-deductible
Australian dollars to other NGOs annually is inconsistent with the principles
of natural justice!
It is ‘natural justice’ for Chanti
and Chhork, Rosa and Chita that I am primarily concerned with. My asking of
questions in a public domain should cause no discomfort to the Global
Development Group if the NGO was, until a little over a week ago, aware of
Chanti and Chhork’s five year battle with Citipointe church to have their
daughters returned to their care. It may
well be that Geoff Armstrong, when he has appraised himself of the facts on 24th
Feb, will be horrified that GDG funding has been used by Citipointe church to
break up a family and respond promptly in the manner in which GDG feels to be
appropriate.
 |
| In Nov 2008 I had this 'contract' translated. It is not counter-signed by any member of Citipointe church, makes no mention of Rosa and Chita staying with the church until they are 18 and has been declared a fraud by everyone who has read it - including the Trafficking Police |
Chris also suggests that in copying ACFID on my letters to the Global Development Group I am acting in a way that may be prejudicial to the “successful resolution of your complaint.” This is not my complaint. It is Chanti and Chhork who have a complaint. I am merely acting as their advocate.
Without my advocacy, neither GDG
nor ACFID would be aware of Chanti and Chhork’s plight. Neither can GDG or
ACFID be aware of the plights of all the other impoverished and illiterate
Cambodians on the receiving end of GDG-funded NGO aid whose human rights have
been abused by the very NGOs supposed to be helping them – if these aid
recipients do not have someone to advocate on their behalf.
I know of two other instances in
Cambodia in which the beneficiaries of aid from Global Development Group funded
NGOs have made the same complaint – namely that the NGOs in question refused to
return their daughters to the family when requested by their parents. To whom
should these two sets of parents address their complaints?
Only by chance, on 7th
Feb, did I discover that the Global Development Group provides funding to
Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home.” There is no mention of this fact that I
can find on the Citipointe website. If, despite all the efforts that I have put
into getting Chanti and Chhork’s children returned to them this past five
years, I have been unaware of the involvement of the Global Development Group,
what chance is there that impoverished
and illiterate parents will ever know that the NGO that has abrogated their
human rights is funded by an Australian NGO (in this instance, the GDG) that
has a complaints process? And how will these impoverished and illiterate
parents know, in the event GDG fails to address their complaint adequately,
that they can lodge a complaint with ACFID?
 |
| A few months after the church had taken complete control of the lives of their two daughters, Citipointe gave Chanti and Chhork (both Buddhists) this photo of Rosa, holding a silver crucifix up on the instruction of the photographer. Since 2008 Rosa and Chita havfe been indoctrinated with Citipointe's evangelical Christianity and have not been allowed to join the rest of their Buddhist family during any Cambodian festivals or ceremonies. |
There is a mass of anecdotal
evidence within Cambodia that human rights abuses of the kind that Chanti and
Chhork have endured, occur with monotonous regularity. However, anecdote and
innuendo are not enough to initiate an investigation – by either GDG or ACFID.
‘Common knowledge’ and rumour can only be used as a starting point for a proper
and independent investigation. Without an advocate such as myself, however, who
do the parents who claim to have been treated in much the same way that Chanti
and Chhork have been, turn to for help? How can or will GDG or ACFID ever be
aware of the complaints of these parents? . Neither organization can be. Neither
organization has any mechanism whereby these parents can lodge a complaint. Or
even to let the parents know that they have a right to lodge a complaint. And,
of course, without a complaint, there is nothing for either GDG or ACFID to
investigate. And without an investigation and the release of a subsequent
report there is nothing for the media to report on – unless someone such as
myself stumbles upon the impoverished Cambodians who claim that their human
rights have been abused. In my case, three GDG-funded NGOs.
In the absence of a complaints
process that aid recipients can take advantage of the status quo will be
maintained – generous members of the Australian public who make tax-deductible
donations to the Global Development Group (and other such NGOs) blissfully
unaware that they may, in the own small way, with their donations, be complicit
in the human rights abuses that occur within the NGO community in Cambodia. And
perhaps elsewhere in the world.
There is a systemic problem here
that needs to be addressed by ACFID, by the Global Development Group, by
AusAID, by Australia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and by all the decent NGOs
whose reputations will inevitably be tarnished by the revelation that there are
some bad apples in the NGO barrel. ACFID, the GDG, AusAID, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and the NGO community on Cambodia all know about the bad apples
(of which there are too many) but have chosen, to date, to remain silent. It is
time for them to speak out.
ACFID could take the lead here
and initiate some form of independent monitoring and assessment process whereby
impoverished and illiterate Cambodians whose human rights have been abused can
be readily identified and their complaints addressed. An ‘Office of the Aid
Ombudsman’, if you like. Such an Ombudsman’ office could see to it that all recipients of aid
from Australian NGOs are aware, for instance, that they are under no obligation
to place thumb prints on documents that they cannot read and whose contents have
not been explained to them; that they have a right to be provided with a copy
of whatever agreements they have entered into with an NGO. The recipients of
Australian aid could also be made aware of that they have a right to make a
complaint to the ‘Aid Ombudsman’ if they believe their rights have been
abrogated by the NGO providing the aid.
The cost of this service to the
recipients of aid could be borne through contributions made by NGOs. The Global
Development Fund alone could, with just 1% of the $25 million it disburses each
year, contribute $250,000 to the ‘Office of the Aid Ombudsman’.
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment