Everyone pays lip service to the ideals of transparency and accountability these days – government departments, bureaucrats and, of course, NGOs.
Transparency and accountability lie at the very heart of a healthy functioning democracy so it is appropriate that all bodies (governments and NGOs alike) that exert power with the assistance of money from the public purse, should be held up as ideals. It does not always happen in reality, of course, and it is one of the roles of the media to hold all public officials accountable and to insist that they be transparent.
The same applies to the media too – members of which are also prone to playing fast and loose with the truth in order to push their own agenda. The ideals of transparency and accountability must apply to myself as much as to (in this case) the Cambodian Children’s Fund. I must not publish things that are not true or which,in the process of editing, have presented only that part of the truth that suits me. It is for this reason that I have published pretty well all of my correspondence with the Cambodian Children’s Fund. Should Scott Neeson wish to correct any errors I have made in my account of our correspondence these will be published online in full – with no editing.
Readers of this blog can make up their own minds as to whether I am being unreasonable in wishing to be put in contact with Ka, Chuan and their family or whether it is CCF that is being unreasonable.
14th August
EMAIL TO SCOTT NEESON
Dear Scott
Two years ago, when I attempted to drop off photos to Sokayn at CCF, I had two objectives: (1) I wanted to add an up to date coda to the story I had shot about Sokayn and her family and (2) I wanted to fulfill my promise to the family that, in return for its generosity in allowing me into its life in the dump, I would help Ka and Chuan out financially.
Two simple objectives!
My filming for CHANTI’S WORLD was pretty much at an end and, as it happens, the story within the story about a family living and working in the Phnom Penh dump was a small one. I anticipated that it would occupy less than five minutes of screen time.
At the time (Sept 2011) I had no reason to disbelieve anything I read on the CCF website. It seemed to me that Sokayn and Sokourn now had the best of both worlds – good nutritious food, access to a decent education, medical and dental care and so on whilst at the same time maintaining strong links with their family. I did have some reservations about the fact that CCF was doing nothing to help Ka and Chuan financially but figured that, with a tight budget, CCF had good budgetary reasons for limiting its assistance to the children only. This was before I found out that in the same year that Ka and Chuan earnt, between them $1,000 a year working in the dump, CCF received $4 million in donations. Using the roughest of all calculations this means that if CCF is taking care, say, of 1000 children, CCF received in the vicinity of $4,000 per child in donations in 2011.
When I discovered this I could not help but wonder: How much of this $4,000 (these are ballpark figures) are spent in such a way as to help Ka and Chuan retrain so that they could get jobs outside of the dump? Alternatively, if leaving the dump was not an option, what was CCF doing to see to it that Ka and Chuan and the rest of the family (including a very young baby) at least had access to clean water and nutritious food?
I did not know about the $4 million in donations at the time so questions such as these were not foremost in my mind when I turned up at CCF in Sept 2011.
It became clear within a few days of my attempt to drop photos off to Sokayn that CCF had changed its policy. Casual visitors such as myself, who had been casually visiting for years, could no longer do so. Fair enough. Rules and protocols change. I did not know of the change and there is no reason why I should have. However, as soon as it became apparent that my turning up unannounced was an innocent mistake, why did CCF not do the most obvious thing - make contact with Ka and Chuan and act as a conduit of messages between us. As I mentioned at the time, if for any reason Ka and Chuan had decided they did not want to have contact with me this would have been their decision and not one imposed, on their behalf, by CCF. This is what has occurred. Two years down the track CCF still refuses to either pass messages on to Ka and Chuan or to pass messages from them back to me. Why is this?
The only thing that has changed since Sept 2011 is that I discovered when I made contact with Ka and Chuan, despite CCFs obstructions, that CCF had not helped them start a new life in the provinces at all. You had lied to me, Scott. Why? Was it simply that you are a control freak who did not like the idea that anyone other than yourself and CCF staff might have a relationship with this family? Or was it because you did not want me (and hence my camera) to witness the conditions under which Ka and Chuan were living? I do not pretend to know the answer and it may be that I never discover it. However, it is one of the roles of documentary to ask such questions and so this is what I am doing here and what I will be doing in subsequent filming.
I will now put a good deal of effort into finding Ka and Chuan despite the obstructive position you have taken. My search for them will become part of my film. I will leave it to the audience to decide whether CCF has, this past two years, been acting in a reasonable manner in refusing to act as a conduit for messages between myself and the family.
In the interests of transparency and accountability I have started to publish, online, the bulk of my correspondence with CCF since Sept 2011. It is somewhat repetitious so I am editing it a little, but not in such a way as to misrepresent CCF’s position vis a vis putting me in contact with Ka and Chuan.
The correspondence can be found at:
best wishes
17th August
EMAIL TO SCOTT NEESON
Dear Scott
As an experienced filmmaker you know that there is no way that I can broadcast CHANTI'S WORLD anywhere in the world if it contains anything that is defamatory. Broadcasters have legal departments devoted to making a determination about such matters. And, of course, film producers (if they have any sense) also obtain sound legal advice before including anything in a film that could be actionable. I have been making films for 40 years and know both my rights and my responsibilities.
You will also know, as an experienced film person, that a documentary filmmaker's job is, in part, to ask the kinds of questions I have been asking of you and CCF. To not do so would be irresponsible on my part. It is also an integral part of my job to seek clarification of statements made by one party in relation to another. If A makes an observation about B it is beholden on me to check with B to make sure this observation is correct. And, if there is a discrepancy, to acknowledge in my documentary that a discrepancy exists. A says this, B says that and there is no way that the filmmaker can be sure which is providing an accurate picture of what has occurred. Unless you happen to be Michael Moore, it is not the documentary filmmakers job to tell audiences what to think but to provide audiences with as much information as the filmmaker has at his/her disposal (subject, of course, to the limitations imposed by time slots) and allow the audience to make up its own mind as to where the truth lies.
I have, today, published online, # 4 of my record of online communication between myself and CCF. Our relationship has been 100% online as you have refused to speak with me or meet with me in person. The negative aspect of this lack of face to face contact is that this 'dispute' (for want of a better word) has taken on a life of its own and is, in my estimation, a dreadful waste of time and energy. On the positive side, the fact that all of our communication has been online makes it impossible for either you and me to deny that we wrote what we wrote at a particular time.
In my mind the original reason for this 'dispute' is much less significant than the fact that the dynamic of it reveals just how lacking in transparency and accountability CCF is in the real world - as opposed to the online world in which NGOs can write what they like, regardless of the truth, because the aim is to raise money and the best way to do this is to tell potential sponsors and donors what they want to hear.
As always (and being at heart an optimist) I remain hopeful that you will change your position and put me in contact with Ka and Chuan so that I can (a) Find out from them what their lives comprise of now (perhaps CCF has, finally, helped them establish a new life in their homeland) and (b) to help the family in whatever way it would like to be helped, taking into account that my pockets are not all that deep. It is not the role of CCF to prevent me from making contact with the family;' to prevent me from fulfilling my promise of help made many years ago now.
I am still in Phnom Penh if you would like to talk about any of this face to face.
best wishes
James
In the event that Scott does not respond to this email of three days ago (which experience suggests is highly likely) and continues to refuse to put me in contact with Ka and Chuan, or at least enquire as to whether they wish to be in contact with me, there is no point in attempting to communicate with Scott anymore. This does not mean that I am giving up on my quest to find Ka and Chuan. Far from it.
…to be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment