Scott Neeson
Executive Director
Cambodian Children’s Fund
Phnom Penh
29th October 2013
Dear Scott
On 25th September
2011 you wrote, in relation to Sokayn and Sokourn:
“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.”
This was a lie. At the time of your writing, in Sept 2011, Sokayn and Sokourn’s parents were working in the Phnom Penh dump, earning between them $1,000 a year. Their daughters, Sokayn and Sokourn were living in one of your CCF centres.
 |
| This was Sokayn's family home AFTER she and her sister Sokourn had started living at CCF No attempt at all was made to help the family. Only the children were to be assisted. The parents left to work in the dump under the most appalling of conditions. |
At the time they were, according to you, living a ‘new life back in their homeland’, thanks to the generosity of CCF, Srey Ka and Chuan told me (and my camera) that (a) they received no assistance at all of any kind from CCF and (b) they had requested that CCF return their daughters to them but that CCF had refused to do so. When I asked Chuan and Srey Ka (three times, to be sure) if they had signed any form of agreement with CCF they said no, they had not. It seems that CCF had entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Social Affairs but not with Srey Ka and Chuan. If this is not so, please feel free to correct me.
In this same email of 25th Sept 2011 you also wrote:
“You are a voyeur who has the luxury to romanticize a situation that you know nothing about.”
As I have made clear in our fairly extensive email correspondence, given that you have never met me, your description of me as a ‘voyuer’ amounts to little more than a rather pathetic personal insult.
 |
| The family home in the Phnom Penh rubbish tip. |
As for my lack of experience, I have been coming to Cambodia for 18 years, have travelled the country extensively, have been embroiled in its politics and have, through my association with numerous very poor families, been able to see up close the sorts of problems they encounter in their lives. I include Sokayn’s family in this. They very generously allowed me to film them in their home (for want of a better word) in the dump and at work in the dump.
My ‘thank you’ to the family was a promise, when I had enough money, to buy them the block of land that they had told me they most wanted and needed to extricate themselves from the dump. You have gone out of your way to make this impossible – in ways that I need not repeat here but which are there for all to read on my blog, will be there for all to read in my book and will be apparent to viewers of my documentary. I have set the money aside for the family in a bank account and will, in the not-too-distant future, see if I can find them through Facebook and other social media.
My ‘thank you’ to the family was a promise, when I had enough money, to buy them the block of land that they had told me they most wanted and needed to extricate themselves from the dump. You have gone out of your way to make this impossible – in ways that I need not repeat here but which are there for all to read on my blog, will be there for all to read in my book and will be apparent to viewers of my documentary. I have set the money aside for the family in a bank account and will, in the not-too-distant future, see if I can find them through Facebook and other social media.
Yes, you have threatened (in your veiled way) to sue me if I defame CCF. As we both know it is not possible for me to get E & O insurance if my documentary in any way defames you or CCF. And without E & O insurance no broadcaster will screen it. Just as your lawyers will be looking for evidence upon which they can base a defamation suit, mine have been looking at my film with the object in mind of guaranteeing that there is nothing defamatory in it. There is not. I deal with facts only. It will be up to individual audience members to make what they will of the facts at their disposal.
 |
| A rare treat - a shared egg! |
It may well be that CCF does a lot of very good work and that your NGO’s lack of assistance to Srey Ka and Chuan’s family is the exception rather than the rule. Or there may be some explanation that you have not seen fit to share with me. (Client confidentiality is the usual justification given by NGOs for answering no questions). It may be that the Somaly Mam Foundation does a lot of very good work also by telling lies similar to the one you put in writing to me about CCF having helped Srey Ka and Chuan. Perhaps I am just very old-fashioned but I take exception to NGOs who play fast and loose with the truth, who make up sensational stories (Somaly Mam, for instance) in order to boost donations and sponsorships.
 |
| The family home's one 'bedroom', in which everyone sleeps |
I also take exception (though I am probably in a minority here) to Cambodian children being flown to Hollywood to provide entertainment for celebrities. This is just another form of Poverty Tourism, without the tourists even having to leave Los Angeles! Yes, it makes the celebrities feel great about themselves but how much of the money raised by the young dancers in Hollywood has gone to help their families? Are the mothers and fathers still working in the dump?
You will not answer this question, any more than you have answered any questions I have put to you. Transparency and accountability are not your strong suits and it is highly unlikely that the media in Cambodia is going to ask you the kinds of questions that you and other NGOs should be asked. It is for this reason that Cambodia is awash with scam ‘orphanages’ and other NGOs that are, in essence, exploiting the extreme poverty of so many Cambodians to boost their bank balances.
 |
| Sokourn in her back yard! |
I should stress here that there are lots of good NGOs doing valuable work. My criticisms are reserved for those who are economical with the truth.
I have finished filming CHANTI’S WORLD and am giving all those who will, whether they like it or not, be in the film (even if we do not see them) an opportunity to be interviewed. I have made this offer to you on a few occasions. Here, I am making it again.
best wishes
James Ricketson
Mr Ricketson, I wonder if you are aware that your small and annoying problem with Scott Neeson, revealed in your communications with him, is but the tip of an iceberg of much larger problems that need to be aired in public in relation to the Cambodian Children’s Fund. I will say no more at this point (and certainly not in a public forum) but can I say this: “Ask lots of questions and don’t presume that anything anyone tells you is true.”
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous, my primary concern if with finding this family that took me into their lives back in 2007 and to whom I made a promise. I now wish to fulfil that promise but have no way anymore of making contact with the family except through the Cambodian Children's Fund. Since that is not possible I must follow up on the few clues I have and hope that I can locate them. If, along the way, I discover more than I already know about CCF I would love to include it. Please contact me by my email address: jamesricketson@gmail.com
DeleteJames, if you don’t know it already, though I suspect you do having read you correspondence with Scott, NGO scams in Cambodia are a dime a dozen – especially when it comes to NGOs rescuing children. Children are the gift that keeps on giving for any NGO clever enough to market what they do well. Marketing is everything. And, if you’ve got enough money, you can afford to pay big money to get the best marketing job money can afford. An important part of any marketing campaign is a great brochure – filled with colour photos of smiling kids in class, at their computers, at play etc. Another and maybe more important marketing ploy is a great website that leaves the visitor in no doubt that anything and everything the NGO does is terrific and done with only the very best of intentions. (If you are an egomaniac, you should have as many possible photos of yourself with kids in in arms). Always remember, everyone has a soft spot for kids and if you play your cards right no-one is ever going to ask questions that might make them seem to be unfeeling about the plight of poor innocent little kids with no-one to take care of them but the NGO. This means that the kids need to be presented more or less as orphans, as if they don’t have mums or dads. I’m raving here but I’ve worked for enough NGOs to know what really goes on. Sure, some of them do some good work. I’m talking about the ones that work with kids here. But even if they do some good work it doesn’t mean that the people who run it are not on the take and making megabucks as the same time as they pretend to the world that they are something like a saint. And, hey, if you can get someone to make a film about you and get it shown all around the world you could even become famous and being famous is great for fund-raising but where does the money go. Yeah, you can look at the Annual Reports but so much of the money can be hidden. So much of the money is hidden. I can feel my blood boiling so I won’t write anymore but just like the guy on top of me says make sure you ask lots of questions and realize that everything you are told will be a lie. Find out the truth will be difficult because its like the mafia out there is NGO-land and there’s too much money floating around for anyone making a buck as an NGO to want the truth to come out and see the whole scam collapse
ReplyDeleteThis can all be boiled down to one simple proposition: Follow the money. Not as in, "Look at the books" but as in "How much money has gone into real estate?" Of course the actual owner of the real estate will not have his name attached. It will be in the names of others who, if they have any sense (or if they are greedy enough) will cut loose the guy who gave them the money! A nest of vipers. It will all come unstuck in due course and when it does there will be a chorus of "Whoever would have thought it possible" from the NGO community - most of whom know what is going on themselves.
DeleteI sent the following to Scott yesterday, copying it to various others within CCF:
ReplyDelete"Dear Scott
I have received funding for and will shortly commence filming ' Searching for Sokayn' - a documentary inspired by your adamant refusal to either put me in contact with Sokayn, Sokourn, Chuan and Ka (and the rest the family) or to let the family now that I am trying to contact it. As you know, from quite voluminous correspondence, I wish to fulfil a promise I made to the family back in 2007. That you have gone to such lengths to prevent me from doing so raises a veritable Pandora's Box of questions that 'Searching' will explore.
Please accept this email as a formal invitation to you, from me, to be interviewed for 'Searching for Sokayn' in order that you be able to present your point of view, your perspective, your reasons for preventing myself and Sokayn's family from making contact with each other.
Our correspondence about this matter, in full, is to be found at:
http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com/
best wishes
James
I copied my email to Scott a few key CCF people to make sure that Scott got it and got a curious response from Libby Vaughan.
Delete“Talk to Scott about this , i cant remember the full story about this guy , what i do know is his relationship with this family isn't healthy !!
Libby Vaughan
Director | Cambodian Children's Fund Hong Kong”
My guess was that Libby had sent this to me by mistake, not realizing that I was the ‘guy’ whose relationship with the family wasn’t ‘healthy’.
Dear Libby
When you sent me this email yesterday, I guessed that you have done so by mistake. Nonetheless, just to be sure, I wrote back to you with the following:
"Which guy are you referring to, Libby?
cheers"
Clearly, the 'guy' to which you are referring is me. And it is me whose relationship with the family "isn't healthy."
Given that you and I have never met, never communicated with each other, this knowledge of my 'unhealthy' relationship with 'the family' can only have come from Scott. So, on what basis does Scott believe my relationship to be unhealthy? Pure conjecture of Scott's part, of course, given that he has likewise never met me.
Such denigration, such use of innuendo is one of the ways in which Scott keeps at bay any and everyone who might start to ask questions he would rather not answer or questions, the honest answers to which, would show him in a bad light. A very bad light.
Scott is very image conscious and puts a lot of effort into presenting him self to the world as a kind of secular saint. There is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise and just as Somaly Mam was eventually exposed as a fraud (despite the fact that her foundation does some good work) so too will Scott eventually be exposed as a fraud.
Exposing Scott as a fraud is not of great interest to me. My objective is merely to make contact with Chuan, Ka, Sokayn, Sokourn and the rest of the family and fulfill my promise to them - a promise made when the family was generous enough to allow me into their home and lives to film. Scott can spin this in whatever way he chooses and, no doubt, many will believe him and not even bother to ask him for evidence to back up his innuendo.
There is nothing more for me to add to what is contained in my correspondence with Scott (as outlined in detail on my blog) but please, Libby, take with a huge grain of salt anything Scott might say about me. Ask him for evidence. Scott has demonstrated to me, with his assertion that CCF had helped 'the family' that he is more than capable of telling whopping lies. They will catch up with him, just as Somaly's did and those such as yourself who work for CCF will not be able to plead ignorance of what is going on.
If you or anyone else you know within the organisation has any idea how I can contact the family I am looking for, please feel free to provide me with any information at your disposal. I will treat it confidentially.
best wishes
"Streets With No Names", about Saint Scott, hagiography at its worst. The ABC bought the myth that Scott has perpetuated about himself hook, line and sinker.No difficult questions asked. Scott Neeson and Somaly Mam, two peas in a pod - the good work done by their organisations tempered by rampant egomania and a love of the limelight and, if even some of the rumours are true...(CENSORED)
ReplyDeleteI have not seen "Streets With No Names" but have heard on the grapevine that the film was actually directed by Scott's brother. I have not been able to confirm this rumour and it may be just that. There is nothing online that I can find to either conform or deny. Does anyone know?
DeleteCCF does good work. Not all of it good, but some. That doesn't mean that Scott should be above reproach. He makes much more money than appears on the books so lets stop pretending that he gave up this magical hollywood life and is now living like a monk. I worked for CCF briefly. Scott is an egomaniacal control freak who is a genius at marketing himself. If a good investigative reporter got onto this he would start asking questions about real estate acquisitions and where CCF millions actually go.
ReplyDeleteThank you to all those who have provided me with information and leads. Much appreciated. For the record, it is possible for an NGO to do good work and also to be crooked. I have no doubt that the Somaly Mam Foundation does good work, but this does not mean that Somaly must, by definition, be a good person whose only interest is in helping victims of human trafficking. Somaly is doing very well financially out of the Foundation and gets to hang out with film stars and, at one point, be voted as one of the 100 most influential women in the world. If you have the cash, if you make up a great and compelling story, you can afford to buy the kind of publicity that guarantees a continuous flow of dollars into the Foundation - some of which goes to helping the girls and a great deal of which goes to helping Somaly maintain her jet-set lifestyle. And yes, I agree with all of those who have pointed out how tiresome it is to keep reading about the enormous sacrifices Scott made leaving his job in Hollywood to work with kids from the dump. With his salary and all the freebies that go with it Scott is not doing too badly financially and may even be doing very very well! None of this is to suggest that CCF does not do some good work. It almost certainly does, but this should not prevent the asking of questions or of holding Scott and CCF accountable for where all the money goes. In the case of this family, not one cent was going to help the family - earning around $1000 a year in the dump whilst Sokayn and Sokourn (my own spellings) were living in comparative luxury in a CCF institution.
ReplyDeleteNeesons lies will catch up with him just like Somaly Mam's lies have. Dont believe a word of what you read about CCF. Yeah, it does some good work, helps some kids, but so does the Somaly Mam Foundation. Ask Scott how much real estate he owns in Steung Meanchey. He won't tell you but the truth when it comes out will show he has made millions out of the 'huge sacrifice' he made giving up his job in Hollywood. If I hear that story one more time Ill puke. Scott is a smooth talking fraud with a great PR machine to make him appear like Mr Good Guy. Same as Somaly. These hypocrtical Hollywood star-fuckers disgust me.
ReplyDeleteI have received word that Scitt Neeson is currently under investigation and is under pressure from its board members to step down as director
ReplyDeleteWe can hope that you are correct!!
DeleteWhat are you doing to help instead of hinder? You need to really think about this all of your time.
ReplyDelete