Scott Neeson
Cambodian Children's Fund
Dear Scott
I am writing to you in relation to the
video that was screened on Channel NewsAsia
on 9th Jan – CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS. There are many observations
that can (and need to be) made about this documentary, and many questions
worthy of discussion and debate. The documentary should be widely viewed.
As you will be aware, because you feature
in CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS, it can be found here:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/tv/tvshows/undercover-asia-s2/cambodia-s-child/1575012.html
I have been criticized for using this photo
of you on my blog. Yes, all of us can be caught by the camera at the wrong
moment and appear in a light that is less than flattering. This is not the
reason why I use this photo, however. It is your physical relationship with the
woman in it who, I would guess, is around 35 years younger than you. There is,
of course, not necessarily anything wrong with this. The physical expression of
affection does not necessarily signify anything other than that – the physical
expression of affection.
However, there is a double standard
operating here. Photos such as this one of
you and the young Khmer woman, and many other such photos that appear on your
website - holding, cuddling children, plus moving images such as those that appear
in CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS - are what your Child Protection Unit and APLE
use as evidence that the man in the image must be a pedophile. Indeed, such
photos are used as evidence in court to convict the men in them and see them
sentenced to lengthy jail sentences.
If David Fletcher, Matt Harland, Nick
Griffin and many others were to appear in photos of the kind that you appear in
all the time, they would be crucified – by your Child Protection Unit, by APLE
and others committed to pursuing and prosecuting pedophiles.
Bearing this observation in mind, what can
be learnt from CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS?
(1) Cambodia has too many ‘orphanages’ – in
which, by general agreement, 75% of the children have at least one parent.
(2) A large number of these ‘orphanages’
are not registered and should not, in accordance with Cambodian law, be allowed
to either take in children or solicit for funding.
(3) Given that pretty much anyone can open
an ‘orphanage’ in Cambodia (registered or not), with no qualifications and with
no body or organization to monitor their activities, the children residing in
these institutions can be abused with impunity by unscrupulous NGOs.
(4)
As James Sutherland from FRIENDS points out , and as is well known from
numerous studies conducted worldwide, it costs up to nine times as much money
to keep a child in an institution as it does to support this child within his
or her family and community.
Would you agree that these are four
statements of fact? This is not a rhetorical question, though I am pretty sure
that you will not answer it. Or, if any answer is forthcoming it will be in the
form of an anonymous comment on my blog from either yourself or someone writing
on your behalf. Such comments are invariably intended to discredit me in one
way or another; to close down discussion and debate rather than to open it up.
My experience with you, Scott, this past
few years, is that you are not open to any form of discussion or debate that
you cannot control. It is for this reason that you never answer questions – not
just from myself but from other journalists who have, quite legitimately, put
questions to you regarding the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
I would be delighted to be proven wrong in this
instance and for you to engage in what should be an open and vigorous debate
about what can be learnt from CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS. The same applies for
all NGOs who are involved in what James Sutherland refers to as the ‘orphanage
business’ and to all those organizations committed to seeing to it that the
human and legal rights of the children residing in these institutions are
safeguarded - LICADHO, ADHOC, APLE, SISHA, CEOP, WORLD VISION, HAGAR, IJP and
others.
Debate about the important issues raised in
CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS should take place in the media also, particularly in
the Cambodia Daily and the Phnom Penh
Post – both of which are reluctant to engage in lively public debates of the
kind required if problems highlighted in this documentary are to be addressed.
If you agree, Scott, that the observations
above (1 – 4) are statements of fact, would you also agree that the solutions
to the problems (with the possible exception of (3) are relatively simple:
(1) 75% of ‘orphanages’ should be closed.
(2) Unregistered ‘orphanages’ should not be
allowed to either take in children or solicit funding.
(3) Some form of independent monitoring of
‘orphanages’ and other institutions in which large numbers of children reside
should be implemented to safeguard against abuse.
(4)
Placing children in institutional care should only occur when no other
family or community forms of care are available. Up to nine children could be assisted
in a family and community context for the cost of institutionalizing one child.
Even if you do not agree that the solutions
suggest here are appropriate, would you
agree that discussion and debate within the NGO community needs to take place
about alternative solutions to agreed upon problems?
best wishes
James Ricketson
...By creating a setting where nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and a supposedly free press proliferate amid an expatriate-friendly business environment and a low cost of living, Hun Sen has allowed Phnom Penh (which has acquired the objectionable nickname “Play Penh”) to become a haven for foreigners fleeing first world constraints and responsibilities, where sex and drugs are still cheap, and where a weak rule of law can provide a consequence-free environment.
ReplyDeleteThe Post and the Daily, says Strangio, “provide high quality reporting and valuable training for young Khmer reporters, but they also form their own part of the mirage—a highly visible advertisement of the government’s ‘commitment’ to press freedom. They are only given such freedom because they have little impact.” The majority of Cambodian journalists—or Khmers, as they are known locally—are either affiliated with the ruling party or harassed by it. Indeed, when I worked at the Daily, there was risk of intimidation, but it was shouldered almost entirely by our Cambodian colleagues.
Like the press, Cambodia’s large aid community has become a tool of Hun Sen’s. Cambodia receives an average of a half billion dollars in foreign aid every year, according to Strangio, and there are 2,600 NGOs registered with the Cambodian government, employing some 43,000 people. In Cambodia much of the aid community is foundering, its leaders unwilling to be the ones responsible for pulling the plug on a failing project. “A spell in Cambodia is generally a comfortable step on the way to somewhere else, and everybody wants to leave with a gold star on their CV,” Strangio says.
Hun Sen’s henchmen, meanwhile, derive substantial income from bilking donor money, writes Strangio, which makes the government less accountable than if it relied on income from taxpayers. Meanwhile, the NGOs provide an array of basic services that the government doesn’t. Less tolerated, however, are NGOs that promote judicial reform, environmental protection, or human rights—those organizations often face banishment, or worse: the prominent Cambodian activist Chut Wutty, an opponent of illegal logging, was killed in 2012 by military police in front of two Cambodia Daily journalists. For many foreign aid workers, though, “life is good enough in Phnom Penh that it’s easy to let things slide, to accept a broken system, to drift through a posting,” writes Strangio. “The result is more than an aid economy; it’s an aid society, marked by relationships of dependence at every level, between donors, government officials, NGOs, and ordinary people.”
Western aid money, however, is becoming less important to Hun Sen, writes Strangio, as China emerges as a preferred partner in Cambodia’s development. Keen to exert its influence in the region, China gives generously with few strings attached—especially those strings related to human rights and democracy.
“Central to the Cambodian experience” for expats, according to the satirical Twitter feed @HunSensEye, is “strongman-driven stability.” But that stability can be withdrawn as easily as it was granted. In the 2013 elections, Hun Sen’s party fared poorly, despite polls that were widely believed to have been rigged in its favor. Subsequent protests were met with a violent response.
Thanks to a younger populace, less resigned to Hun Sen’s authoritarian rule, the prime minister’s prospects in the 2018 election are not promising. It’s unlikely, though, that the man who calls himself the “Illustrious Prince Great Supreme Protector and Famed Warrior” will accept electoral defeat. There’s nothing about his tenure so far that suggests he’ll relinquish power peacefully, which could mean the end of the mirage—and a serious inconvenience for the inhabitants of “Play Penh.”
Dear Mr. Scott Neeson. In Khmer culture it's very inappropriate for a man to hug children the way you do, especially girls and especially when the girl is already over 10 years old!
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that Scott Neeson is always on camera holding and hugging a child (mostly a girl)? Try to Google for images of him. There's not a single image to be found where he's NOT hugging a child.
ReplyDelete'Credible people running NGO's' you say? Have you ever Googled APLE founder Thierry Darnaudet?
If you take footage of Scott Neeson, blur his face, play it slow motion, put some sad music under it and add some serious accusations of sexual abuse in the comments, every person in the world would believe he was guilty.
This is the modus operandi of APLE.
Don't be naive please.
l think letting children hangoff any westerner like in the photos of Neeson all over the internet is in bad taste .. and does this make the children feel that when they see any westerner that it cool to do such things? Neeson is setting a great example to kids, not!
ReplyDeleteI think that photo is so characteristic of this man, I can't come up with words to express my joy of seeing it. This is a man that takes children from loving families to use them to raise money for himself ($93,000+++) and his organization (over $10,600,000 in 2013). His activity would not be legal in the first world.
ReplyDeleteCambodia counts over 300 registered orphanages and many more unregistered orphanages. Some are managed by Khmer, some are managed by Westerners. Some are not bad, some are worse than others.
ReplyDeleteThe Khmer orphanages often lack a proper Child Protection Policy. Many allow visitors to interact with the children. The children are forced to perform dancing, make drawings or other souvenirs for the tourists.
The Western orphanages on the other hand are not necessarily a better environment for children to grow up. Many have very strict policies, minivans to take the kids to school, security guards and a closed gate. That's of course to keep bad people out, but it's also keeping the children locked in!
Strict policies, transportation in minivans, security guards and a closed gate . . . Sounds like a prison to me!
James Sutherland is correct in saying that "children living in orphanages become estranged from their own roots". Children become alienated from their own culture, their families and their villages as a result of living in these Western bubbles.
Khmer children like to climb in trees, grab coconuts, swim in the river, catch fish and get dirty! They can't do all those things inside an orphanage where the gate is always closed, can they?
Of course there are children from abusive, violent or otherwise unsafe family situations. Those children should not be living in that family. But even then it's still better to asses the extended family and try to place kids with a grandmother or an auntie.
Why is APLE taking alleged victims away from their families and putting them in detention in one of their so called 'Safe Houses' until the trial, while the alleged offender is already in jail? Why are these children not allowed to have contact with their parents until the trial?
Is that in the best interest of the children or is that in the best interest of APLE?
And while we're talking about APLE, why is it that APLE is ALWAYS too late (when the alleged crime already happened), even if they've been following a suspect for over a year? Can one of the pro-APLE visitors please explain this to me?
ReplyDeleteIn the documentary APLE claims to be following a suspect for many months and they say there's nothing they can do until they get permission from the court. That's a f*cking lie! Of course there's something they can do, that's if protecting children would indeed be their first priority, which is clearly not the case with APLE.
I remember another documentary (APLE promotion campaign) where APLE is being followed during their 'heroic' work on the streets. The footage shows a foreigner luring an 8 year old boy from the riverside in Phnom Penh. Later, you can see the boy riding on the neck of the foreigner, while they'r heading towards the foreigner's house. The reporter asks APLE's Chief of Field Operations Mr. Houn Tim why he's not taking action. Tim Houn (acting like the average Khmer orphanage director in desperate need for rice ($$$) to feed all of his poor 'orphans' with no father and mother) saying "No we cannot take action. We have to wait for the court to give permission first." How sad!
How about crossing the street and ask the boy something like "Hello my little brother, where are you going? Do you know this man? Does your mother know you're going with this man? Where do live son? How about we'll take you home?"
No, Mr. Houn Tim, Chief of Field Operations doesn't take action! Because that would blow the case! One case of child abuse would have been prevented, but there would be no arrest, no trial, no press release, no article in the Cambodian Daily or Phnom Penh Post, no publicity at all, so NO FUNDING ! ! !
No, APLE needs footage of doors being kicked in, handcuffed foreigners, condoms all over the place, naked children with sperm all over over them. That what brings in donor funds ! ! ! So APLE just lets the crime happen, before taking action.
Seila Samleang, Director of Deceit, says that one case costs APLE between $40.000 and $75.000, depending on how much time they need to follow the suspect They only handle about 12 cases per year, so no wonder that they still need extra funding on top of their $450.000 annual budget! And they cannot afford to lose a case. A crime MUST be committed first to be able to add to their statistics in their annual reports and on the front page of their website. Preventing child abuse from happening means a huge financial loss!
Then there are the cases where APLE just assumes abuse must have taken place. They follow a suspect for two years. Kids come and go. All APLE does is take pictures as 'evidence'. When they ask the children it turns out that all ever happened over the pas two years was that the foreigner was teaching English. That's it and that's all! Then the APLE spies get frustrated. They're sick and tired of spending hundreds of hours under a tree at corner of the street, while the children only reveal that the foreigner teaches them English and gives them some food every now and then. "I give you a 1000 Rial if you tell me what really happened" or "The other kids have already told us what really happened, you can tell us too". That's pure manipulation! But that's all allowed, because 10% of the NGO's annual budget is at stake!
Then the only solution left is to arrest the children, put them in detention in one of APLE's 'Safe Houses', put them in solitary confinement and don't allow any contact with the parents until the trial. The case of American Dr. James d'Agostino is one of many examples. When the parents complain, just promise them $5000 compensation per child and they'll be fine.
Dear readers of this blog, please don't be naive!
Children walking around carrying their younger sibling begging for milk powder are not hungry and poor. A can of milk powder costs $5-$8. These kids make $30 per night, $300 per month for the family. That's big business
ReplyDelete90% of the kids in Cambodian orphanages are not orphan at all and have at least one living parent. At some orphanages the kids go home after the tourists leave and after they handed over their gifts to the manager in return for 1000 Rial ($0.25)
No, Cambodian language schools don't appreciate you because you're just fresh out of high school and have no teaching experience at all. They just want you to make a donation!
No, Action pour les Enfants (APLE) is not there to protect children. They just want to make footage of handcuffed foreigners, condoms all over the place and naked kids with sperm all over their body. In other words, they just want you to make a donation.
Welcome to Cambodia, The Kingdom of Wonder!
I agree with Mr Ricketson that we must not too quickly pass judgement on images of non-Khmer men being affectionate with Khmer children. The woman in this photo is not a child though but a young woman and it is totally inappropriate that Scott Neeson should be holding her and allowing her, for the camera, to hold him like a lover and not a friend. What was he thinking? Judging by the expression on his face he was not thinking!
ReplyDeleteEven if Scott Neeson's intentions are pure, the message he sends to children when he allows photos of himself cuddling them, is: "It is OK, if you meet a nice man who buys you food and treats you well and he wants to cuddle you."
Neeson should know better.
Aple is a Business their product is men the can accuse of committing sex crimes. Whether they are guilty or innocent is irrelevant to APLE.
ReplyDeleteTheir revenue comes from three main sources
1. Large International Donors, who I am sure do not know about their criminal or ( highly questionable activities) ?
2. Embassies who pay large sums to Aple for their lawyers to prosecute cases. The British Embassy was recently shown to be doing this. Other Embassies also support them in this way. I wonder how much the lawyers actually get ?
3 If a product (man) himself or his family has money they can,depending on how marketable the case is, buy their way out.
There was a case in Siem Riep of an Australian guy in 2011 working for a large German NGO who put his laptop in for repair. Soon after he was visited by police and Aple who found porn on his laptop. He had receipts showing the dates it was in for repair and the porn was put in while they had it. They also said they had a statement that he had had sex with a boy, but the boy has left town and they are looking for him?
After some months in detention he was released. The figure was 40,000 USD
When I spoke to his lawyer he said " do you know how much he paid?" I did not ask because I had been told already.
There may well be other sources. Aple needs huge revenues as their network of staff is huge.
Please understand the one constant in life is change. Already on this blog people have said that Lonely Planet, tour operators and donors have been advised to warn male travelers from the USA and Europe or anyone thinking of spending time in Cambodia to stay away.
There has been lots of publicity overseas recently about the problems with one NGO and also about the reported sex crimes here. What does this mean the for the NGO’S? Simply less male travelers and those who do come will be very watchful about being set up.
So, a smaller potential market.
To survive the Aples and others in the industry must have products to market.
Who ?
You could be next!
Do not feel you are immune because you drink and socialise with a group.
I was a University lecturer, never had any previous charges, had a 30 year old girlfriend who worked as a receptionist in a top hotel. The laptop porn case above was a respected NGO executive with a beautiful girlfriend.
You could be next!
I want to add to that Aple in particular will try to maximise the marketability of the product by adding value of the product. ie, in my case lied about the actual charge, or make the case sound more lurid and abhorrent .
I want to make the point that when a business has less and less products to market and shrinking revenue they will do whatever they need to do to keep the revenue flowing in .
Things will change, nothing ever stays the same.
You could be next!
“Evil prospers when good men do nothing" John Philpot Curran
Liam, APLE is a business, that for sure, But catching Westerners is not their actual end-product. Western men, as well as the children involved in their cases are just the materials to make their product.
DeleteAPLE's actual end-product is their press releases and docu-campaings such as the one we're discussing here.
APLE likes to present Cambodia as a Heaven for Pedophiles. This not only sticks to the reputation of Cambodia, but it also attracts pedophiles, rather then keeping them out of the country!
10 or 15 years ago the sex industry was part of the tourism industry.But times have changes. Cambodian economy has grown and the standard of life has gone up. Safe and clean streets, without prostitutes and beggars brings in a better type of tourist.
The tourism industry of Cambodia has been working very hard to restore the reputation of Cambodia and most key figures within the industry are not at all happy with APLE's fundraising campaigns.
About the corruption you mention, things might be slightly different then you'd expect. In our experience corruption occurs more outside the court then inside the court. It's the lawyers!
The recent survey among detainees in Prey Sar prison confirms that many were not allowed to choose their own layer and/or translator. The lawyers offered by the police are cooperating with APLE to assure a guilty verdict.
In other cases lawyers took large amounts in advance, but never went to court to pick up the documents of the case and disappeared for good. Former APLE lawyer Hong Sambath was known to be acting as a 'broker' between the lawyer of the accused and the families of the 'victims'.
In the end APLE's business model cultivates all types of other corrupt activities on the side. That's why it has all the characteristics of a true industry: The Child Protection Industry.
This might be of interest to some: On the CCF facebook site, this statement was made...."Poverty is not a reason to take children from loving families, to be 'raised' by paid staff. It is a reason to help the FAMILY!"
ReplyDeleteThis reply came back signed Scott, "______ it's best to do some research - all easily available and verified by indie source - before making outlandish comments. All CCF children come from poverty. We educate and care for them - however they are not removed from families. Even the boy above visits home regularly. More than 80%go home at least once week. Less than 1% of all CCF students have no access to families, either because there are no families (including extended families) or there is immediate, high risk at home. Less than 1%! That is a verifiable fact. So where did you source your information? Scott"
Please allow me to extrapolate a little of what this mean. From their 2013 tax return, I can see that have over 700 children in what they call their housing. With the 1% figure that Scott uses above, that means that only 7 children do do not go home to visit their families due to either being true orphans (and have no families) or because there is immediate, high risk at home.
That clearly implies that over 99% of the children that Scott takes from their family to 'house', are not orphans (they have family to go 'home' to) AND they are NOT in immediate, high risk at home.
Now can you tell me who the REAL child predator is??
Scott's own comments quoted here back up what is blindingly obvious to anyone who meets and speaks with (as I have) the families with kids in CCF care - namely that most of the kids residing in CCF institutions have families. Virtually none of them are orphans and yet for these 700+ kids the Cambodian Children's Fund is essentially an orphanage.
DeleteScott's comment, "That is a verifiable fact" is worthy of comment.
One of many problems with the Cambodian Children's Fund is that no facts can be verified. Scott refuses to answer any questions relating to 'facts' or to allow for any independent verification of what he claims. This does not simply apply to myself but to any and all journalists who ask him questions.
Here is one question that I wish every journalist in Cambodia would ask, and every human rights organisation, and every sponsor and donor to CCF:
"Please, Mr Neeson, could you make public the pro forma contract that the parents of children taken into CCF care are forced to sign?"
A second question could be along the lines of:
"Do you allow the parents of children that CCF takes into care to seek advice from either human rights organisations or lawyers before they sign these contracts?"
A third question could be:
"Why do you not allow the parents to retain copies of the contracts they sign?"
A fourth might be:
"How many of the kids in CCF care are sponsored and how much of the sponsorship money is provided to their families?"
For anyone who wishes to ask these and other similar questions of Scott (The Cambodia Daily, the Phnom Penh Post, LICADHO, ADHOC etc) here is his email address:
scott@cambodianchildrensfund.org
Good luck getting any answers!
If no answers are forthcoming, questions need to be asked in public fora as to why CCF does not adhere to the precepts of transparency and accountability that Scott espouses?
Neeson needs to be made into the poster boy of 'TAKING CHILDREN FROM FAMILIES AS A PROFITABLE BUSINESS."
ReplyDeleteAPLE should investigate CCF. Licadho and AdHoc should investigate APLE and CCF. The English language newspapers should investigate APLE, CCF, Licadho and Ad Hoc but who is going to investigate newspapers who dont want to write anything critical of any of the above? What a mess. Poor Cambodia to be saddled with this lot of self-serving incompetents.
ReplyDeleteIt is absolutely laughable - and very embarassing - to see the replies to these blogs. Most of them are obviously written by yourself, James, with a handful of others (usually the shorter less literate ones) being written by Fletcher.
ReplyDeleteYou have a strange sense of humour, Mr (or Ms Anonymous)and avery low threshold of embarrassment.
DeleteI can assure you that I am too busy writing this blog (and doing other things in my life) to bother with writing Anonymous comments. I can assure you also that David Fletcher has not made any comments at all for many weeks now as he has no internet access. And when Mr Fletcher does make comments, as with Liam Miller, he uses his own name.
I am not sure if there is one anonymous person who writes comments such as this one attacking me or if there are many. it doesn't matter, really. It is the substance of what is being written about here (by myself and others) that is important and worth of discussion and debate - not the identity of the person making the comments.
As with pretty well all comments critical of myself this one fails to address the content of what I have written. Address the content. Agree or disagree. Present an alternative way of seeing things. Shoot me down on the basis of my having my facts wrong but please donut delude yourself into thinking that the words 'laughable' and 'embarrassing' (amongst many other such derogatory descriptions of me) have any other impact on me other than to shake my head in wonder!
Absolutely laughable and embarrassing, indeed you are - hence why your posting here to discredit Rickeston and his exposing the truth in your NGO world - worried about your greedy pay packet and your worthless job back bencher, let the truth unfold its best card yet .
ReplyDeleteI would like Mr Neeson to answer one very simple question: Why is it ok for you to "give bread" to disadvantaged children and hug them, but not OK for others to do so. You, Mr Neeson, are doing exactly what Mr Fletcher is accused of having done, minus the alleged rapes, which, to use the words of you or one of your supporters in these comments are "verifiable" as not-fact, as per the doctor's assesment and the statements of the "victim" and her mother.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I would like to address the comment of Mr. Neeson or one of his supporters, who believes that the anonymous comments are written by Mr Ricketson or Mr Fletcher. Firstly, anonymous comments are also being made by yourself or in support of you. Secondly, Ricketson and Fletcher have both made very clear their stance on issues concerning yourself and APLE--they have no need to hide their identity. Thirdly, why does it matter who writes the comments? The content is what is important. And the answer to that might be in my fourth point, which is that, it is well known and obvious that you have connections with police and powerful people, and that you have the skill to twist the truth and the will to shut down your detractors, so it is very understandable that people would want to remain anonymous in order to minimise the chance that they be targeted by you in any way. This could also explain the lax efforts of journalists to put the squeeze on you. Mr. Neeson, if all you do is so good, come out and answer some simple questions with your "verifiable facts".
ReplyDelete