Directors
of the Global Development Group Board
Unit
6, 734 Underwood Road
Rochedale, QLD 4123
6th March 2014
Dear
David James Pearson, Geoffrey Winston
Armstrong
Ofelia (fe) Luscombe, Alan
Benson, David Robertson
It
is taking an interminable time for GDG to determine whether or not Citipointe
church had a legal right to remove Rosa and Chita from their family in July
2008? This is a question to be resolved with reference to facts, to evidence,
to contracts; to legally binding agreements and MOUs
Some
agreed upon facts:
(1)
At some point prior to July 2008 Citipointe church signed a memorandum of
understanding with the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to set up what is
now known as the ‘SHE Rescue Home’.
(2)
Citipointe has, on many occasions, insisted that this MOU gave the church the
right to detain Rosa and Chita contrary to their parents wishes.
(3)
On 31st July 2008 Citipointe asked Chanti to place her thumb print on a
document giving the church permission to care for Rosa and Chita.
(4)
Citipointe gave Chanti a copy of this 31st July ‘contract’ to Chanti
but did not provide her or her husband Chhork with a copy of the MOU the church
had entered into with the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
(5)
The 31st July ‘contract’, unsigned by the church and with no terms
or conditions in it, gives Citipointe none of the rights the church has claimed
in relation to Rosa and Chita this past five years and eight months.
(6)
The legality the church’s actions must reside in the MOU Citipointe entered into
with the Ministry of Foreig Affairs.
(7)
Citipointe has refused, for more than five years, to provide a copy of the MOU to Chanti, to Chhork or to
myself as their legally appointed advocate.
(8)
The Global Development Group is in possession of a copy of this pre-July 2008
MOU.
(9)
The global Development Group has refused to provide Chanti, Chhork and myself
with a copy of the MOU.
Any
independent observer, any journalist with no other objective than to discover
the truth of what has taken place this past five years, would find that the
above-mentioned 9 facts are indeed facts beyond dispute.
An
interpretation of these 9 facts:
I
am not a lawyer but believe there are some reliable inferences that can be
drawn from these facts:
On
31st July 2008, Citipointe did not believe that its pre-July 2008
MOU with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave the church the right to remove
girls from their families. If Citipointe believed that it had this right on 31st
July there would have been no need for the 31st July ‘contract’.
Citipointe could have simply taken Rosa
and Chita and cited the MOU as justification.
(2)
In not counter-signing the 31st. July 2008 ‘contract’, which
contained none of the terms and conditions Rebecca Brewer told Chanti, Chhork
and myself it contained later on, the church was guilty of deception. The same
applies to its telling Chanti and Vanna at the time that they were entering
into an agreement with the Human rights organization, LICADHO
(3)
The 31st July ‘contract’ mentions that Chanti has no home. This is
demonstrably not true. I filmed the family in their home on the same day that
Citipointe recruited Rosa, Chita and other girls down by the riverside. This is
why I was there, that day, to film the singalong, the prayer meeting and the
subsequence handing out of food packages to the children and their parents. I think it reasonable to infer that the
inclusion of this lie about the
families’ homelessness in the 31st July ‘contract’ adds weight to
the argument that the ‘contract’ was a deliberate and deceitful ploy to truck a
materially poor and vulnerable young woman, who can neither read nor write,
into giving up her daughters. The circumstances surrounding the signing of this
document are a breach of Article 8 of
Cambodia’s 2008 Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation
(4)
On 11th August 2008, Rebecca Brewer announced to Chanti (and
informed me in an email) that Rosa and Chita would stay with Citipointe until
they were 18 years old. Given that the July 31st 2008 ‘contract’
entered into between Chanti and the church makes no mention of this (and the
‘contract’ is fraudulent anyway), the legality of the church’s pronouncement on
11th August 2008 must, of necessity, reside in the pre-July 2008 MOU
Citipointe had entered into with the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
This is an MOU that the Global Development Group has a copy of on file. This is
the MOU that the Global Development Group does not believe Chanti and Chhork
have a right to be provided with a copy of.
With
no copy of this MOU to refer to it is impossible for Chanti and Chhork to know
if it gives Citipointe the right to retain custody of Rosa and Chita until they
are 18. With no copy of the MOU Chanti and Chhork have no way of knowing why
their daughters were removed from their care, what their rights as parents are
and what they must do to get their daughters back. They are now land owners,
live in a large house, own a tuk tuk and a rice paddy and yet they are still
denied even visiting rights to their daughters – let alone the right to have
their daughters returned to their care.
In
not providing Chanti and Chhork with a copy of the MOU, the Global Development
Group is not only adding to the distress that they have felt this past five
years but complicit in whatever human rights abuses have been visited up this
family. The precise nature of these abuses cannot be determined without
reference to the pre-July 2008 MOU. In not providing Chanti and Chhork with a
copy of the MOU the Global Development Group is revealing (a) that it has
limited commitment to the precepts of transparency and accountability and (b) an
attitude towards the recipients of aid in third world countries that would, I
think, come as a shock to the many Australians who have donated money to GDG.
They e3xpect their generous donations to go towards helping the Chantis and
Chhorks of the world and not to te break up of their families, the removal of
their children and the children’s forced conversion to Citipointe’s particular
brand of the Christian faith.
I
believe that there is a very real possibility that the MOU Citipointe entered
into with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not give it the right, on 11th
August 2008, to proclaim the church’s right to retain Rosa and Chita until they
were 18. I believe that there is a very real possibility that it is for this
reason that the church has refused for five years to provide Chanti and Chhork
with a copy of it. I believe that there is a very real possibility that the
Global Development Group is well aware that the pre-2008 MOU does not give
Citipointe the rights it has claimed and that it is for this reason that you,
members of the board, do not wish for the contents of this MOU to be known to
Chanti, Chhork or myself. If this MOU does not give Citipointe the rights the
church has claimed this will reveal not only that Leigh Ramsey and her staff
removed Rosa and Chita illegally five years ago but that the Global Development
Group’s monitoring and assessment processes are so inadequate that recpients of
GDG funds can practice human rights abuses with impunity.
I
will not write to the board again. It is a waste of time. There is more than
enough on record now for anyone who is interested, to look with a critical eye
at the Global Development Group, to ask the kinds of questions I have been
asking this past month or so and to form their own impressions as to whether or
not GDG can be trusted with the tax-deductible donations made to it by
Australians.
When
I return to Australia I will, acting on Chanti and Chhork’s advocate, seek
legal advice as to how, through Australian courts, it may be possible to force
the Global Development Group to provide the recipients of GDG aid (through
Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’) with copies of the legal documents that have
enabled GDG monies to be spent breaking up Chanti and Chhork’s family and
forcing their daughters to become Christians in the Citipointe mold.
best
wishes
No comments:
Post a Comment