My dispute with the Cambodian Children’s Fund began with a simple attempt on my part to give some photos to Sokayn and to fulfill my promise to help her family financially in return for allowing me into their lives, albeit briefly, dying my filming of CHANTI’S WORLD. Whatever misunderstandings there were at the beginning (my unannounced arrival) would so simply have been sorted out by Scott Neeson acting as a conduit for messages between myself and the family. He chose not to. I managed to find the family anyway, did some more filming with them (to bring me up to date) and was told certain things by Ka and Chuan in an interview that led to my having a few more questions for Scott.
29th July 2012
EMAIL FROM SCOTT NEESON
James,
I am replying on the assumption that you believe you are working in the best interests of the girls and family and that you have no ulterior motive. I'm replying too because your actions could jeopardize the girl's well-being and put them at risk. You have made a promise to the family without an understanding of the implications.
As previously mentioned, I am not at liberty to give out personal information of children in our care, their families and previous histories. This is a policy that protects their privacy. Being a vocal Westerner gives you no priority in terms of accessing private information.
Consider the response you would receive if you asked a welfare worker in Australia to provide case details of a child in foster care because you required an ending to your film or for simple personal interest. The children and families in our care have the same rights in the protection of their privacy.
The parents are welcome to discuss with our staff any concerns they have. We do not pretend to be a "second family" to the children in our care and families are generally encouraged to maintain close relations with their children. Our overriding concern is ensuring the child's safety and welfare and a hope that the parents will allow their child an opportunity for an education.
In fact, CCF is the only organization in Cambodia that actively engages the families, to the extent of providing transportation not only to the children from the garbage dwelling communities but from far-flung provinces such as Poipet, Battambang and Svay Reang. Every child in our care spends time with their families, most once or twice a week and for those with distant homelands, during the major vacation periods. The only exception are those children who face immediate and tangible risk; these children account for less than 5% of those in our care. I ask that you consider this before crusading on behalf of a family.
I don't see any benefit in discussing this in person. Per above, we will gladly discuss with family, authorized officials and those with legal guardianship. We do not discuss with those who have a personal interest or wish to use the information for entertainment.
I hope you are able to put aside any self-righteousness or commercial intent and consider that we may be acting in the interests of the Sokheng.
best
29th July 2012
EMAIL TO SCOTT NEESON
Dear Scott
In the interests of clarity, transparency and accountability, let me go through your email of today one point at a time:
“I am replying on the assumption that you believe you are working in the best interests of the girls and family and that you have no ulterior motive.”
I am a documentary filmmaker, as you know. I have been recording many stories in Cambodia this past 16 years. One of the stories has to do with the small family I met whilst filming in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump. My ‘ulterior motive’, if you like, is to make a documentary that reflects aspects of life as it is lived by poor people in Cambodia.
“I'm replying too because your actions could jeopardize the girl's well-being and put them at risk.”
In what way could my actions jeopardize the girl’s well being or put them at risk?
“You have made a promise to the family without an understanding of the implications.”
Srey Ka and Chuan wish to live in the province they consider to be their real home and they wish their daughters to accompany them. If there are implications that I am not aware of, please let me know what these are.
“As previously mentioned, I am not at liberty to give out personal information of children in our care, their families and previous histories. This is a policy that protects their privacy. Being a vocal Westerner gives you no priority in terms of accessing private information.”
I have not asked for personal information about the children. I get my ‘personal information’ from Srey Ka and Chuan.
“Consider the response you would receive if you asked a welfare worker in Australia to provide case details of a child in foster care because you required an ending to your film or for simple personal interest. The children and families in our care have the same rights in the protection of their privacy.”
Scott, more than 25 years ago I adopted a street kid in Australia and I am well aware, through my experience with her and with others, that I am able to act as an advocate on the part of anyone who gives me permission to do so. I have, this morning, obtained just such a letter from another poor person that enables me to ask questions on her behalf. This is standard procedure. If need be, I will obtain such a document from Srey Ka and Chuan. It probably will not be necessary since I do not require personal information that I do not have.
“The parents are welcome to discuss with our staff any concerns they have. We do not pretend to be a "second family" to the children in our care and families are generally encouraged to maintain close relations with their children. Our overriding concern is ensuring the child's safety and welfare and a hope that the parents will allow their child an opportunity for an education.”
Srey Ka and Chuan have expressed their concerns on camera - the primary one being that they do not wish their daughters to remain with CCF until they are 18. Rightly or wrongly they are of the belief that CCF insists that it will keep the girls till they are 18. They claim also that they have no contractual arrangement with CCF. Again, I do not know whether this is correct or incorrect and if you do not wish to comment that is, of course, your right.
“In fact, CCF is the only organization in Cambodia that actively engages the families, to the extent of providing transportation not only to the children from the garbage dwelling communities but from far-flung provinces such as Poipet, Battambang and Svay Reang. Every child in our care spends time with their families, most once or twice a week and for those with distant homelands, during the major vacation periods. The only exception are those children who face immediate and tangible risk; these children account for less than 5% of those in our care. I ask that you consider this before crusading on behalf of a family.”
Srey Ka and Chuan maintain that they get to see their daughters for one day every two weeks. They have said to so camera. I have no way of knowing if what they say is correct or not and, in the absence of any response from you, I can only add, in my voice over commentary, that CCF had no comment.
“I don't see any benefit in discussing this in person. Per above, we will gladly discuss with family, authorized officials and those with legal guardianship. We do not discuss with those who have a personal interest or wish to use the information for entertainment.”
According to Srey Ka and Chuan there is no contractual arrangement between themselves and CCF. If they are incorrect in this and you do not wish to comment, all I can say, yet again, in my voice over is, “CCF declined to comment.” This is, as you know, pretty standard procedure in documentaries and current affairs programs. As for not wishing to meet with me this is, of course, your right. The invitation was a matter of professional courtesy.
I hope you are able to put aside any self-righteousness or commercial intent and consider that we may be acting in the interests of the Sokheng.
As for my ‘commercial intent’, I will never get back anything close to the amount of money I have invested in my film this past 16 years. However, a substantial amount of what I do get will wind up in the pockets of the poor people who have been so kind as to let me into their lives over the years. In the case of Srey Ka and Chuan I intend to help them in such a way that they will never need to work in the rubbish dump again.
best wishes
James Ricketson
29th Sept 2012
EMAIL FROM SCOTT NEESON
Likewise. We have nothing else to add. Please refrain from emailing us further.
(1) Without having met the man (he refuses to do so) I have gleaned three things about Scott Neeson from my email communication with him:
(2) He plays fast and loose with the truth.He does not answer questions.
(3) He makes statements that are not based on fact but which are designed to both discredit the person asking them and to throw up a smokescreen. For instance:
“…you believe you are working in the best interests of the girls and family and that you have no ulterior motive. I'm replying too because your actions could jeopardize the girl's well-being and put them at risk.”
Need I state the obvious? All I wanted, at the outset, was to give some photos to Sokayn and make contact with her mother and father. From this Scott infers that I must have ulterior motives that even I am not aware of. But will Scott say what these are? No.
As for my wishing to give photos to Sokayn and fulfill my promise to her parents to help the family out financially, how could this “jeopardize the girl’s well-being”? How could I, in fufilling my promise to help the family out financially, be placing the girls at risk?
Scott does not answer questions such as this. “We have nothing else to add. Please refrain from emailing us further,” is Scott’s response when asked questions he does not want to answer; questions that require transparency and accountability on his part.
…to be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment