# 12 Response from Scott Neeson to my letter to Heather Graham

Scott Neeson of ‪Cambodia Childrens Fund has asked if we would allow him space here on the K440 forum to refute the baseless allegations made by ‪James Rickertson on ‪this thread and so we are happy to post Scott's words unedited:

Hello all,

I have avoided responding to the postings of James Ricketson as such people thrive on limelight. Mr Ricketson’s claims are completely false – and verifiably, beyond-doubt false – however as is the nature of media, accusations leave mud on the those attacked, no matter how ridiculous the claims.

As you will read below, Mr Ricketson has unquestionably defamed CCF and me. He has already been found guilty of defamation once in Cambodia, with a suspended sentence. To charge him with defamation would likely mean jail time for Mr Ricketson. That is a harsh punishment. The defamation laws here have too often been used to silence good people. I believed that the truth and reputation would negate the need to take legal action.

I will keep this as brief as possible however the extent of Mr Ricketson’s allegations are broad so please bear with me.

To start with the Mr Ricketson’s motivations, his earlier emails pointed to his need to interview “Sokayn’s” family in order to complete his film. That is source of these attacks and partly explains Mr Ricketson’s persistence.

Mr Ricketson first came to our attention when he showed up at one of our all-girls facilities, demanding to see one of our pre-teen girls. Clearly, that is against all child protection practices. He then claimed to have a gift for her. Our staff asked that he leave it with us and we give it to her. He then became irate and was eventually asked to leave.

That has become the basis of his hostility and attacks. He is insisting that we put him in touch with the girl’s parents. Our policies’ and child protection practices, and those of any worthy children’s, forbid this. The parents are usually the first stop in the child grooming process. It’s just not done and being a Westerner grants no special access to our children or their families. As expressed to Mr Ricketson, try turning up at an Australian girls school and demanding to speak to a specific girl, then claiming to bear gifts. You would be arrested.

This is the core of his attacks: we will not give him access to the girl’s parents, either directly or indirectly (ie ask the parents to contact him).

Cambodian Children’s Fund has a very good reputation and being tainted with false allegations does not sit well. He has attacked me with donors and media. On laying out the facts here, all verifiable, I would hope that Mr Ricketson has the ethical fortitude to a) apologize publicly b) write to all those with whom he has communicated his defamatory remarks and unequivocally retract his allegations and apologize for falsely tainting a charity c) permanently remove your “cambodianchildrensfund.org blog spot” site.

Mr Ricketson, assuming the below forms irrefutable proof that you have started and perpetuated lies against CCF and me, will you made these amends?

Allegation#1:

The header reads: Scott Neeson Exposed as a Liar.

And goes on to say that

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.

And more recently to Heather Graham: “You will discover, if you read it, that Scott is a liar. If he lies to me, can you be sure that he is not lying to you?”.

Fact: I have never lied. CCF did support the parents as I stated above. We provided funds and good in order for them to return to their homeland. We have signed receipts from the family. Funds given to the family range from money to fertilize their crops ($40) to the purchase of food, transport and health related. Inclusive of sponsor’s fund, we have provided Sokayn’s family with over $500 of support, all receipted and line-itemed.

Allegation #2

CCF does not have signed agreement with the parents, assuming Duty of Care.

Fact: We have a signed Duty of Care agreement.

Allegation #3:

Made in numerous public correspondence: That CCF removes children from their parents, institutionalizes them, refuses parents access and in this specific case “When their mum and dad, Chuan and Ka, asked him to return the girls, Scott refused”.

Fact: For a children’s NGO in today’s climate of anti-institutionalization of children, this claim is the most egregious, damaging and verifiably nonsense.

CCF does not remove children from families. We do not refuse access to parents and we spend a significant sum returning children to their families, no matter the distance.

Only one third of the children in our care, about 700 children, “reside” at CCF.

Over half of these return to their families once or more a week.

Over 70% return to their families at least once a month (those with families outside of Phnom Penh).

Through an extensive and expensive logistical nightmare, we return all CCF children to their homelands for the major holidays, over 1,400 in all.

The number that remain within CCF is under 2% and only where there is an immediate risk to their safety or there are no surviving family members.

The total cost to send children to their homelands exceeds $20,000 however CCF’s values require us to maintain child-family ties. I do not know of any NGO that places such resources into maintaining family ties.

Specific to Sokayn, Mr Ricketson’s claim that we are keeping her from her parents is utterly false:

Sokayn returns to her homeland for major vacations, spending 2 weeks with her family.

On other occasions, CCF pays transport costs for the parents to visit Sokayn.

Sokayn talks to her parents by phone regularly, ie once or twice a week.

Sokayn’s parents continue to receive essential support from CCF and we maintain strong, friendly relations with the parents. They are proud of her progress. Mr Ricketson’s use of Sokayn’s destitute past, before she joined CCF, is not, in my mind, unethical. As Sokayn is not her real name, I have attached below a recent image of her, teaching English to a new crop of students.

This is not unique to Sokayn; keeping family ties applies to all CCF children.

In terms of Mr Ricketson’s own ethical standards and his lobbying to have Sokayn and her sister return home, consider this example:

Two years ago, the older sister, then 14 years old and a full-time student, returned home 2 years ago and didn't return. She was sent to work in a shoe factory. We contacted the Ministry of Social Affairs, who visited the parents and were unable to convince them to return the girl to school.

I sent a copy of the Ministry’s report to Mr Ricketson however he continues to push for Sokayn to return to live in her homeland. I am not going comment on Mr Ricketson’s motivations here, only provide the facts.

(The support CCF has given to the parents is conditional on Sokayn remaining in education and to date the parents have honored that agreement and that is why we continue to keep close family ties).

Another core value of CCF is that a family shouldn’t suffer through loss of income or loss of a child-sitter in order for their children to study. The extent of CCF’s family services basically negates the need for the mother to decide between food on the table that night and sending the children to school. We provide families with:

Free health care, with over 2,500 treatments per month

Heavily subsidized rice purchases (for perfect school attendance, CCF gives the family 10 kg at no cost)

We provide childcare services for the youngest siblings, so the parent is able to work and the older siblings can attend school.

We provide free housing for those with outstanding attendance records.

In short, CCF is the furthest thing from Mr Ricketson’s portrait of a closed-off insitustionalized orphanage. CCF is not an orphanage, we are an educator. To date, every Year 12 student has passed high school and moved on to university.

Allegation 4:

Sending children overseas to perform/dance for Hollywood/wealthy donors.

Fact:

We have never sent “performers” overseas.

Those youth that have gone overseas, nearly 100 in all, have done so to:

1) attend the annual Tony Robbins Global Youth Leadership Summit. CCF receives scholarships from this foundation and is sending another 10 students next

2) speak on leadership/rights issues. One prominent example is Ang Mom, who was invited to join BBC’s 100 Women Summit in London and subsequently had BBC make and broadcast on her achievements and future plans.

3) Youth who have attended fundraisers have never danced. They have spoken of their achievements against the odds and their plans for the future, without exception.

The overall allegation that we lack transparency, that I am about to be exposed, the comparisons to Somaly Mam etc. Such murky statements are easy to make and hard to disprove. However if there is something to expose or an area that appears to lack transparency, then I simply ask that it be raised. If my “past life” is under question, then challenge it. If our financial or policies are not transparent, then ask and we will clarify. Murky rumblings without stating facts or asking questions is a coward’s way to destroy a reputation.

To write to Heather Graham perpetuating lies for one’s own ends, to imply that my brother makes the media stories (!) are contemptible actions however I do not want my emotions to detract from the simple facts.

The only “allegation” that I see to be true is that we will not provide contact with Sokayn’s parents. We will not and, even under the most minimal child protection standards, cannot do so.

The two and half years of Mr Ricketson’s attacks have a trail of mistruths that would take a book to refute – this letter is longer than intended. He has more time to make these allegations than I have to refute them and that is why I have addressed the most damaging, the most verifiable and most repeated allegations here.

In terms of my use of “verifiable”, I am willing to share the documentation referred to with a credible third party and have them talk to the Sokayn’s parents to confirm the above.

There is little doubt that Mr Ricketson has defamed CCF and me. I made a conscious choice not to take legal action and instead rest on our reputation and the facts.

However, by any ethical measure, Mr Ricketson’s next actions should be an apology.

He needs to right his wrongs. He needs to retract his comments and to contact those he emailed, including CCF’s board, donors, the Australian Embassy, the Cambodian Daily, Four Corners Australia, Australia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and dozens of others.

Mr Ricketson, will you right your wrongs and apologize for making false allegations?

Yours,

My response to Scott

Dear Scott

It is great that, at last, you have answered some of the questions I have been asking you for he past few years and which you have declined to answer. Thank you. As for the details of your rebuttal, I doubt that any but a few would be interested in a blow by blow account of how we got to the point where I should even deem it necessary to write to Heather Graham. However, for anyone who is interested, the correspondence between us is laid out clearly on my blog. You have added some details that do not represent the truth to bolster your case. I will publish your rebuttal on my blog and, when time permits, respond to it. I would like to repeat here, my previous invitation to you to be interviewed for my film. Are you prepared to be interviewed by anyone other than your brother? I would also like to suggest that you make yourself available to the Cambodia media (both Khmer and English speaking) to discuss the issues raised in our dispute. I would quite happily return to Cambodia to be present for such a 'press conference' - one in which you demonstrate your commitment to transparency and accountability.

cheers

James