Dear
Scott
Could
you please pass this note on to Sokayn’s parents, Chuan and Ka, and let them
know that I am trying to make contact with them to fulfill the promise I made
to the family to buy it a block of land. You can, of course, choose not to pas
my message on (as has been the case this past few years) or you can pass it on
and allow the parents to make their own decision as to whether or not they wish
to make contact with me. If they do, I will supply a phone number and address
at which I can be contacted. If the family has no desire to communicate with me
further, this is their decision to make, not yours.
cheers
James
Dear Chuan and Ka
Scott Neeson has
published on the internet a photo of Sokayn standing in front of a blackboard.
It is good to see that she looks well and to hear that she is teaching English.
The last time I
saw you both, two years ago now, down by
the Bassac river in Phnom Penh, Sokayn’s English was already quite good. I
imagine that it is much better now and that she will be able to read this note
to you if Scott Neeson has decided to pass it on.
I have not forgotten
the promise I made to you to buy a block of land in return for your generosity
in allowing me to film you and your children working and living in the old
Phnom Penh dump.
It seems from what
Scott writes that you now own land. If so, this is good news, but I am sure
your family could use the money I set aside for you as I promised.
I hope that it is
possible to see your family again on my next trip to Cambodia. Scott Neeson has
my contact details.
best wishes
James Ricketson
A Note re differenctiating between ‘good’
and ‘bad’ NGOs.
It has been
pointed out to me that I should not “tar all NGOs with the same brush.” This is
true. There are good NGOs and there are bad NGOs. It is important for donors
and sponsors to be able distinguish between them and not see their money used
inappropriately or, in some instances, used to breach Cambodian law and the
human rights of the recipients of aid.
It is the role of
the media, in the interests of transparency and accountability,
to ask of all NGOs
the kinds of questions I have asked Scott Neeson this past few years and which,
till yesterday, he has refused to answer. Scott’s answers give rise to more
questions, which I will ask in due course.
It is not just the
media that should be asking such questions but the NGO community itself. Liars
such as Somaly Mam tarnish the reputations of all NGOs and, I imagine, make it
just that little bit more difficult for ‘good NGOs’ to overcome the skepticism
of donors and sponsors who have been burnt by their involvement with fraudulent
NGOs. It is in the interests of the NGO community that ‘bad’ NGOs be exposed as
quickly as possible and not be allowed to operate for years after year before
they are exposed by journalists such as Simon Marks.
The NGO community
must, I believe, find some way of monitoring itself if it is to retain its own
credibility. Given that it has been public knowledge for many years now that
the Somaly Mam myth was based on lies, why did the NGO community, many years
ago, not ask out loud the kinds of questions I am asking of Scott now?
The difference
between the asking of questions and the making of allegations seems to escape
Scott. By conflating the two Scott can adopt the high moral ground, act as
though a question is an allegation and then present himself as being a generous
soul for not suing the person who asks the questions? I will, in due course,
have some more questions for Scott and it would appear, from his response to my
letter to Heather Graham, that he will likewise try to present these questions
as allegations.
Given the sheer
size of the Cambodian Children’s Fund, the number of children living in
institutional care, and the many millions that flow through its bank accounts
each year, questions should be asked. And those who ask them should not be
attacked for doing so.
In relation to my
two year suspended jail sentence for ‘Threatening to dishonor Citipointe
church,” the crime itself is laughable. Threatening to dishonor! There is no
such crime in Cambodian law but, as all readers of this blog know if they have
spent any time in Cambodia, with a corrupt judiciary it is possible to sue
anyone you choose for the most nonsensical of reasons and obtain the verdict
you pay for. That Scott could even make reference to this court case (one which
I was not invited to attend) speaks volumes of the way his mind works since he
knows all too well that verdicts arrived at in Cambodian courts have little, if
anything, to do with justice.
For a detailed
account of how it was that Citipointe church managed to manipulate the Cambodian
judicial system to drag me into court, visit:
http://citipointechurch.blogspot.com.au/
I should make it
clear that I am not claiming that CCF does no good work. I have every reason to
believe it does, but then the same applies to the Somaly Mam Foundation also. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that the Foundation does a lot of good work but this does not
absolve Somaly of her responsibility to be transparent, accountable and to tell
the truth. The same applies now with Scott Neeson. My questions are questions,
not allegations. However, there comes a time when the refusal to answer
questions is suggestive of the notion that the person refusing to answer them
has something to hide. It has taken Scott a long time to answer questions I
asked two and more years ago and I think it fair to say that he has only done
so as a result of my writing to Heather Graham. This should not have been
necessary. Scott could easily have answered my questions at the time I asked
them.
I will have more
questions for Scott in the next week or so.
No comments:
Post a Comment