 |
Ka, 8 months pregnant, works 10 hour days in the dump, 6 days a week, earning around $40 a month
|
EMAIL TO SCOTT NEESON
Dear Scott
It is a great disappointment to me that the Cambodian Children's Fund has decided not to allow me to give photos to Sokayn and will not put me in touch with Sokayn and Sokourn's mum and dad (Ka and Chuan) or, at the very least, ask them if they want to make contact with me. I would be very surprised if they would have been anything other than delighted to see me and pleased to receive from me a gift I had promised them, but you have taken it upon yourself to be obstructive in what I consider to be a most paternalistic manner. Ka and Chuan are adults who are more than capable of making a decision for themselves as to whether they would welcome a visit from me or not.
I have watched the world of CCF from afar and been very impressed with what I have read. Somewhat naively, I now realize, I thought that the story I shot in the dump in 2007 and 2008 would be of use to CCF in the context of my feature film. It is not to be. Such is life.
Where all my other Cambodian stories have codas (where are they now?) my little story about Sokayn, Sokorn, Ka and Chuan (and others in the family) must end with a question mark as far as Ka and Chuan are concerned and with the fact that CCF refused to allow me to see Sokayn and give her photos - even in an outdoor context with dozens of people around. I can only shake my head in bewilderment at such a response from CCF.
best wishes
 |
22nd Sept 2011
EMAIL FROM PATRICK MC KINLAY
Hello James,
You seem to have forgotten that in an earlier reply I offered to pass on the photos to the girls and the family. I also explained that CCF will not give anyone's contact details to third parties without the clear agreement of those concerned - that's a fairly simple and pretty standard position and should be unsurprising. What has surprised me is that you have shown an ability to communicate clearly and in detail only after your unannounced arrival and access request. Communicating prior to your arrival might well have made dealing with your request significantly easier. If I may borrow your own expression, I can only shake my head in bewilderment at your bewilderment. The offer to pass on the photos stands.
All the best,
Patrick
 |
Sokayn and her mum, Ka, on the way home after a day's work that has earned the family around $3
|
22nd Sept. 2011
EMAIL TO PATRICK MC KINLAY
Patrick
As I have mentioned, I made several visits to Stung Meanchay over the years without any prior announcement of my arrival and it was never a problem. How was I to know, after 20 months, that the rules had changed? What harm would there have been, whilst I was in Phnom Penh, of asking Sokayn's mum and dad if (a) They'd like to see me and (b) if they minded me giving the photos to Sokayn, if, for any reason, they had said no I would have been very surprised but would, of course, respect their wishes. Instead, you have taken it upon yourself to say no on their behalf - the very worst kind of paternalism. I am not a sponsor and have had no prior dealings with CCF. I am a friend of the family wishing to use CCF to make contact. You, or at least CCF, have, taken a proprietorial position in relation to the family that surprises me. I have seen much such behaviour over the past 16 years from a certain style of NGO but did not expect to encounter it with CCF.
… Okay, given that there might have been a misunderstanding on my first visit, why, when you realized that I have known the family for four years, didn't you (or the relevant person at CCF) talk to Sokayn and ask her if she'd like to see me? Or, if you felt the need to get parental permission, why didn't you seek to do so? Or get the relevant person to do so? If Chuan and Ka are not actually living in the dump I imagine that they will be living nearby and be readily accessible. Or, if not readily accessible, you could have said, "Hey, James, not easy to contact Ka and Chuan right now but when they come to see Sokayn on the weekend I'll have a chat with them and let them know you are trying to contact them." Or, if they are in the province, let me know this. None of this happened. You related to me only in terms of correct procedures - which apply to your sponsors and should not apply to friends of the family. You have made a unilateral decision on behalf of both Sokayn and her parents to thwart my contacting them. Whatever misunderstandings there may have been at the outset you have had ample opportunity to rectify. You have not taken them. You are going to stick to your guns regardless and play NGO cop - rigidly monitoring who has access to the family and who does not, regardless of the wishes of the family. At the risk of repeating myself, Patrick, this is old style missionary paternalism.
 |
The family diet is basically rice. Imagine what it is like in their 'home' when the monsoon season sets in
|
EMAIL FROM SCOTT NEESON
Hi James,
Sorry for the delayed reply. This is my correct email address - the other address is used for mailing newsletters. I believe Patrick contacted you while you were in Phnom Penh and offered to give the photos to Sokheng and Sokhoeurn.
Our policies are in place to protect the welfare of the children in our care. Our facility management are trained to refuse entry to strangers who arrive at our facilities unannounced and we certainly do not provide access to our girls upon demand. I know Patrick offered to give the photos and gift to Sokheng, a selfless option to provide Sokheng this gift. Further, if we have your background details and a day or two advance notice, we can usually find an arrangement that works.
Similar policies apply to the child's parents. The most common route used by child sex offenders to access their victims is via their parents. The promise of money and long term support can be appealing to impoverished parents. In fact, the previous two Westerners who met with parents of our children were both convicted pedophiles. They found the parents using their own resources. One fled the country, the other was sentenced to 10 years prison in absentia for the rape of a minor. The parents of Sokheng and Sokhoeurn are not the property of CCF but by the same token we are not going to lead strangers to their door.
What you see as obstructionist and bewildering is basic child protection policy. I assume you know the reaction you would receive if you arrived unannounced at a girl's school in Australia, asking to see one of the girl students. CCF affords our children the same safety and care, regardless of their poverty and their prior living conditions. The Colonial-era mentality of providing children on request to any Westerner showing up at a child facility still happens in Cambodia but it has no place in CCF.
I am sorry we could not meet your expectations.
Scott Neeson
 |
Despite extreme poverty, this is a close, loving and happy family - an observation of the kind that Scott Neeson believes renders me guilty of having a romantic view of poverty. The reality is that being poor is not a bar to being happy - anymore than being rich is a guarantee of happiness.
|
25th Sept. 2011
EMAIL TO SCOTT NEESON
Dear Scott
After 16 years of visiting Cambodia I am well aware of the need for policies to protect the welfare of children. As I have explained to Patrick on a few occasions now, on none of my previous visits (invariably made after filming at the dump) did I announce my arrival or seek permission to visit Sokayn. It was not a rule at the time and there was no way, two weeks ago, that I could have know that the rule had changed.
To say that I was ‘demanding’ access to Sokayn (my spelling f her name is clearly wrong) is disingenuous. I wanted merely to say hello and give her some photos. I have never been inside the facility and fully expected, as has happened many times before, that I would chat with her for five minutes (my Khmer is not great) out the front (surrounded by other girls), give her the photos and leave.
At the time that Patrick became involved he could quite easily have said, “Hey, James, sorry about the confusion. We’ve got more strict guidelines in place now but if you’d like to come out again in a couple of days and say hello to Sokayn, that would be fine.” Such a response would not have taken place, of course, without asking Sokayn and without asking her parents. Fair enough. And if, for any reason, they announced that I would prefer that I did not visit, fine. I can’t imagine why they would but that would be their call. And this is my point. It should be their call. Not your call – unless, that is, you have some evidence that they don’t have that I might, even in the full view of dozens of other people outside the centre, do or say something inappropriate.
In the case of Sokourn’s parents and my desire to make contact with them, Patrick or someone working on his behalf, could easily have asked them if they knew me and if they would welcome a visit from me at their home – whether that be in the dump (where they used to live) or (hopefully) in some more improved accommodation. If they did not know me, alarm bells could (and should) have immediately started ringing. But to work on the presumption that any and every foreign man is a potential paedophile is counter-productive if it results in the kind of colonial paternalism that is in evidence here. It presumes that Chuan and Ka are so poor and, presumably, so stupid, that they need CCF to make decisions for them about who they can be friends with and who they cannot be friends with.
NGOs come in all shapes and sizes. There are good ones. There are bad ones and there are some (too many) that wish to treat Cambodian’s like children who need, at all times, to have their hands held by wise foreigners who know what is best for them. Given the power relationship that is a function of the fact that foreigners are rich, the Cambodians almost always defer to what foreigners want; what foreigners think is in their best interest – discouraging them from taking initiative and responsibility for themselves. I need not go on. I am sure you are more than aware of the various dynamics in place in the NGO industry.
My film, which I have been shooting for 16 years, has a very personal dimension to it – for reasons I need not go into here. It will, on one level, be a record of my own personal response to the complexities of Cambodia. I was filming one day at the dump when Sokayn literally walked up to me, took my camera in her hands and stared down the lens. She then took me to meet her mum and dad and to show me where she lived. Though only 7 years old she invited me into her life. Her parents followed. It was natural, unplanned, spontaneous and in all my years in Cambodia Soaky remains one of the most remarkable children I have met – her smile, her infectious laugh, her spirit all strong despite the dreadful nature of her surroundings and her lack (in the dump at least) of even the barest minimum of material possessions. The love that she had (and expressed) for her sister, brother (the new baby) and her father were inspirational. Indeed, the love shared by all members of the family made me realize just how much we in the materially comfortable west have to learn from Sokayn’s family. In our arrogance we presume that our lives and values are superior. They are not. Yes, we have much in the way of material comfort but this little family is far richer than many families I know in Sydney and, I am sure, for you in LA. This is my experience of Sokayn and her family. This is what I have filmed. And now, instead of there being a coda to this little story to the effect that CCF is doing great work to help families such as Sokayn’s, my story now ends with CCF effectively preventing me from having any further contact with the family. When we were both younger men a feminist catch cry was that all men are rapists. Now, in Cambodia, it is that all men are potential pedophiles and even the parents of Cambodian children need to be protected from them. Really, Scott!
My ‘Sokayn’ story is not ending as I would have hoped and, indeed, as I expected it would. Such is life. The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions and, in taking your good intentions way beyond what is healthy, you’ve pretty well destroyed my friendship with the family and their with me. I had intended this last trip for my film to be my last but I will make one more to see if I can find Chuan and Ka and give them my present.
cheers
James
 |
The family kitchen
|
25 th Sept 2011
EMAIL FROM SCOTT NEESON
James,
We simply followed universal child protection policies. Yes, unexpected visitors are considered a risk to children until they can prove otherwise. Actually, it is our call as to whether you get to see Sokheng or not. The parents gave us duty of care of their children and we take that care seriously. Her safety is of greater priority than your desire to spend time with her. The selfless option of leaving the photos with Patrick was of no interest to you.
You are welcome to contact her parents and we took no action to prevent you doing this.
Having Sokheng remain on the garbage dump with her family may have fulfilled your vision of a life-lesson on the human condition. Sokheng and her family loathed living on the garbage dump - the squalor, ill-health, degradation and other conditions you are blissfully unaware of - and wanted nothing more than to transcend that existence.
CCF gave the children a Western-quality education and provided the parents with a new life back in their homeland. We provided real, tangible help to them.
I work in this community and in this environment every day. You are a voyeur who has the luxury to romanticize a situation that you know nothing about. Your view that this family had a richer life than you and your community in Sydney is the paternalistic nonsense of someone who gets to fly in, film their hardship, then fly back to the luxuries of home, to pass judgment on those of us who remain here.
If you want to walk your talk, then embrace "the richer lives" of Sokheng's family and live on the garbage dump for a year. At that point, you will have the moral authority and empathetic understanding to tell me how to best look after the kids and their families. Until then - like a sports fan watching a game on TV and yelling at the umpire - your opinions of "how things should be" has no bearing on the outcome.
CCF provided the children and parents with what they wanted most - the opportunity to transcend. That this isn't your expected and desired coda should give you pause to question your motivations for wanting to film their hardship.
I have plenty of greater priorities so let's end this communication.
Scott Neeson
Scott’s statement…
“CCF gave the children a Western-quality education and provided the parents with a new life back in their homeland. We provided real, tangible help to them.”
…was a lie, as I would discover soon when I managed to track down Ka and Chuan – still working in the dump, living in a windowless box that could not be dignified by the name ‘home’ and earning, between them, $1,000 a year
…to be continued…
 |
Sokayn, always smiling, challenges the widely held view that poor people must, by definition, be 'miserable'. This is not an argument in favour of keeping the poor poor, despite Scott Neeson's conviction that it is!
|
Scott provides children to Prince Charles and friends
ReplyDelete