My interest in the role played by
Scott Neeson in the pursuit of David Fletcher (accusing him of grooming young
girls in a widely circulated sensationalist newspaper) came about by accident.
In 2007, in the Phnom Penh dump,
I did a good deal of filming with a very poor family comprising a father
(Chuan), a mother (Ka) and two young daughters – Sokayn and Sokourn. The family
both worked and lived in the dump.
The family required $1,500 to buy
land that would make it possible for them to return to their community in Prey
Veng. I was determined to give them this money when I had it. I did not, at the
time.
In 2011 I did have the money but
the family had moved out of the old dump (which had closed) and the only way I
had of contacting Chuan and Ka was through the Cambodian Children’s Fund – in which
Sokayn and her sister were now resident. The first chapter of what happened
next can be found below:
Is Scott Neeson the knight in shining armour he presents himself to the world to be?
“You are a voyeur who has the luxury to romanticize a situation that you know nothing about.”
So writes Scott Neeson to me in Sept 2011. Scott is the founder and Executive Director of the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
 |
Sokayn's family dwelling (background) rests on top of a 30 foot pile of decayed and decaying rubbish
|
Scott’s ‘voyeur’ observation is in relation to filming I had done over the previous few years with a family that worked and lived in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump.
 |
Sokayn's dad, Chuan, and mum, Ka
|
“Your view that this family had a richer life than you and your community in Sydney is the paternalistic nonsense of someone who gets to fly in, film their hardship, then fly back to the luxuries of home, to pass judgment on those of us who remain here… Having Sokheng (Sokayn) remain on the garbage dump with her family may have fulfilled your vision of a life-lesson on the human condition.”
I had neither written nor implied what Scott suggests here but, as will become apparent, Scott does not allow the facts, the truth, to deflect him from the expression of his self-righteous indignation.
“Sokheng and her family loathed living on the garbage dump – the squalor, ill health, degradation and other conditions you are blissfully unaware of – and wanted nothing more than to transcend that existence.”
On this point Scott and I are in complete agreement.
 |
Sokourn (older sister) and Sokayn at home - 10 square feet of open space with a roof made of plastic sheeting
|
It is Scott’s next sentence that is problematic:
“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.”
The problem with this assertion of Scott’s is that it is simply not true. At the time he wrote it the mother and father of the family, Ka and Chuan, were still working in the rubbish dump. The family was not living a new life back in their homeland thanks to the Cambodian Children’s Fund. Sokheng (I spell her name phonetically as Sokayn) and her sister Sokourn were living in a CCF institution whilst their parents lived in a squalid box that does qualify for the word ‘home’ and earning, between them, $1,000 a year working in the dump.
 |
Sokayn at work in the Phnom Penh dump
|
In the interests of transparency and in order to allow interested readers to make their own minds up I will publish, in installments, all the correspondence between myself and the Cambodian Children’s fund with the most minimal of editing. This will place Scott’s observation about my being a voyeur in context. And it will reveal, in his assertion that CCF had “provided the parents with a new life back in their homeland”, that Scott was being economical with the truth.
From this one demonstrably untrue statement a whole host of questions arise about the Cambodian Children’s Fund but first, the record how a simple request on my part led to Scott’s calling me a ‘voyeur’ and his playing fast and loose with the truth about providing a ‘new life back in their homeland’ to this exceedingly poor family:
 |
The family's work environment
|
10th Sept 2011
EMAIL TO PATRICK at CCF
Dear Patrick
In 2007 I met and became friends with a small family living in the Phnom Penh rubbish tip. I was, a the time, shooting a film about Cambodia. In each of my subsequent visits to Phnom Penh I went to the dump with food and a small amount of money to give to the family. And, when Sokayn went to live at Steung Mean Chey with the Cambodian Children's Fund, I visited her there on a few occasions with small presents. This morning, when I went to Steung Mean Chey to give Sokayn some photos that I took four years ago and to find out how I cold contact her parents I was told that I could not say hello to Sokayn and that I could not be told an address where I can contact her parents without your permission. So here I am, on a steamy Phnom Penh morning, requesting your permission to give the photos to Sokayn and to let me know how I can make contact with her parents.
cheers
 |
Sokayn collects plastic bags in the dump for recycling
|
15th Sept 2011
EMAIL FROM PATRICK
Hello James,
I’m sorry you've had problems but I hope you appreciate that we just cannot give access to the kids to people we don't know and who arrive without any prior contact or chance for us to be confident about them. It can cause problems…If you've been reading the local English language press recently you'll have seen that more accessible children's organisations are in the news for all the wrong reasons. You mention that it's 4 years since you were in touch. We'll be happy to pass on the photos to Sokourn and the gift to her parents if you would like us too and we'll make sure too that we get and send you the evidence of this having happened.
All the best,
Patrick
 |
Smoke from burning rubbish, including rubber, fills the air all day, every day. Respiratory illnesses are common amongst the 300 or so who work in the dump.
|
15th Sept 2011
EMAIL TO PATRICK
Dear Patrick
It is not 4 years since I saw Sokayn and her family. It is 20 months. And on each occasion I both visited them at the rubbish dump and visited Sokayn at the centre for five minutes or so. This was in the courtyard with dozens of people around. Exactly how I could possibly be a threat to Sokayn under these circumstances is a mystery to me. Clearly, all the staff at the Cambodian Children's fund centre must be new since none of them recognized me. Sokayn will be 11 years old now and the woman who told me that I could not say hello to her (having told me that Sokayn was there) could easily have asked Sokayn if she knew me and if she'd like to say hello and receive the photos from me. If Sokayn had said no or given any indication at all that I was not the sort of person who should be visiting her, fair enough. However, I think if you asked Sokayn you would discover that I am not a pedophile, mean no harm and that I am a friend of the family.
I have not read the English press in Phnom Penh lately but I can imagine the problems you are referring to. They are real and need to be combatted. However, what you are essentially telling me in this email is that I cannot see Sokayn and that you will not help me make contact with her family - a relationship I formed that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Cambodian Children's Fund.
I can, of course, find Sokayn's mum and dad in another way - presuming that they still work at the new dump. No, I cannot get into the dump myself but I can get a message to them and, perhaps, meet up with them if they so wish. And if they don't, that's OK too - as long as it is their decision and not one made by the Cambodian Children's Fund.
Whilst it is appropriate that the Children's Fund be very careful, such care can tip over all too easily into paternalism. Unless I am reading the subtext of your email incorrectly, it seems that the Cambodian Children's Fund now considers itself to be the guardians not only of Sokayn and Sokourn but of their adult parents as well. This is paternalism, Patrick.
So, I will find Sokayn and Sokourn's mum and dad in another way. A bit more time consuming and complicated but not impossible.
cheers
 |
The plastic bags that Sokayn collects are usually filled with putrid smelling organic rubbish
|
15th Sept 2011
EMAIL FROM PATRICK
Hello James,
CCF does take its protection duties seriously and it does look after the children as carefully as it can. Even sponsors that the staff know don't get access if they arrive unannounced and alone. Likewise with information we might have about parents - their address and so forth - that sort of information is not freely distributed to anyone who asks for it. That is not unusual. We wont give out information about anyone we know or deal with without their say so.
All the best,
Patrick
 |
The family income is $1,000 a year
|
15th Sept 2011
EMAIL TO PATRICK
Patrick
It would be easy for you to ask Sokayn's mum and dad if they would like me to visit them. It is not for you and the Cambodian Chilren's Fund to take complete and total control of this. You could ask them also (along with Sokayn) if it would be OK for me to visit Sokayn. If they say no, so be it. That is their right. It is not your right to make such unilateral decisions. I am not a sponsor. I am a friend of the family. I met them whilst filming in the dump. I have been filming here for 16 years and I know paternalism when I see it. The family comprises only a very small part of my 16 year record of Cambodia but I had hoped, on this trip to tie up loose ends, to be able to finish this little story within a story on a positive note as it seems to me that the work that the CCF is doing is terrific. Instead, this story must by definition end with my being refused to see Sokayn and the CCF refusing to put me in contact with her family. As I have mentioned, I do have another way of contacting them but will have to do so on my next trip to Cambodia…
Cheers
James
The correspondence between myself and the
Cambodian Children’s Fund continued for quite some time and is all clearly laid
out in a separate blog. The next installment of this story is to be found at:
http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com/2014/05/2-is-scott-neeson-saint-bully-liar-or.html
Anyone that is helping this organization by sending funds, should STOP. Taking children from their families is destructive.
ReplyDeleteWhy won't Cambodia follow its own laws and arrest this criminal?
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence at all that I am aware of of Scott Neeson doing anything illegal in relation to children.
ReplyDeleteI question the wisdom of including a photo such as this one on the Cambodian Children's Fund website, however. What message does this send to Khmer children? That it is OK to allow men to pick you up like this?
And what message does a photo such as this (and many others to be found on CCF Facebook) send to potential donors and sponsors?
More importantly, in the context of Action Pour les Enfants' pursuit of David Fletcher, Matt Harland and others, why is it that APLE has accused other men of being pedophiles on the basis of photos infinitely more innocent than this one?
The only photo of David Fletcher in which there is any physical contact with children is one in which he is holding hands with one girl, with a few other girls smiling for the camera. All the girls are dressed.
Yet this photo has been presented to me, on many occasions now, as evidence that David Fletcher must be a pedophile.
There is an extraordinary double standard operating here - a photo of Scott Neeson with a semi naked child in his arms is OK, but a photo of David Fletcher holding a young girl's hand is not OK and evidence that he must be a pedophile.
Other than that I think it foolish for Scott to publish online a photo such as the one above of himself and Sokayn I do not believe it (or the photo of David Fletcher) is evidence of any inappropriate behaviour.
Well you know that he has taken children by using coercion. Coercion is illegal in Cambodia.
ReplyDeleteTo be precise, because precision is important here, what I do know is that when parents have asked for their children to be returned to their care CCF has said 'no' and cited the 'contract' the parents have signed with CCF as a reason. The parents, many of whom can neither read nor write, had no choice but to sign such 'contracts' and were not given the opportunity to show them to anyone who might be able to provide them with advice about the advisability of signing them. Nor are any parents allowed to keep copies of the contracts they have signed so the option of taking such a contract to LICADHO or ADHOC (or any other human rights NGO) is not available to them.
DeleteFor years now I have been asking LICADHO to ask Scott Neeson to produce, to make public, the pro forma contract that CCF forces parents to sign before taking their children into care. LICADHO refuses to do so.
So if LICADHO and ADHOC are protecting the rights of children, what are they doing? This makes me so angry!!!
DeleteCorrection: So if LICADHO and ADHOC are not protecting the rights of children, what are they doing? This makes me so angry!!!
DeleteYou are wrong about coercion, Mr Ricketson. I got this from your own blog:
DeleteLaw on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation
Article 8:Definition of Unlawful Removal
The act of unlawful removal removal in this act shall mean to:
1) Remove a person from his/her current place of residence to a place under the actor’s or a third persons control by means of force, threat, deception, abuse of power, or enticement, or
2) Without legal authority or any other legal justification to do so to take a minor person under general custody or curatoship or legal custody away from the legal custody of the parents, care taker or guardian.
Article 9: Unlawful removal, inter alia, of Minor
A person who unlawfully removes a minor or a person under general custody or curatorship or legal custody shall be punished with imprisonment for 2 to 5 years.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7259345/Law-on-Suppression-of-Human-Trafficking-and-Sexual-Exploitation-15022008-English
Forcing parents to sign a contract they cannot read and do not understand and which they are not allowed to retain copies of is 'coercion' in my book.
@ 5.18
DeleteLicadho gets funding from the following Embassies so will not investigate human rights abuses committed by NGOs from their home countries – Australia, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom or countries in the European Union. And because Licadho is a partner with Aple and Director of Licadho Naly Pilorge is one of the founders of Aple Licadho is not going to investigate any alleged human rights abuses by Aple. It is a cosy club and if you want to stay part of the club you have to keep your eyes closed and your lips sealed. Welcome to Cambodia. Kingdom of Wonder!
Hey Neeson, have you taken any children from their Mothers today, or have you ruined enough families for one week?
ReplyDeleteI would really rather that comments such as this were not posted. They are not helpful. Scott believes, along with many other NGOs, that children are better off being brought up in an institution than within their own families and communities. I disagree with this proposition and all the research indicates that it is not the best way to help disadvantaged children - either from an emotional and psychological point of view or from an economic point of view.
DeleteHowever, I do not believe that Scott or any other NGOs deliberately set out to 'ruin' families. They are acting with the very best of intentions, but then so too were all those in Australia in the 19th and 20th centuries who believed that Aboriginal children were better off growing up in institutions than within their families, communities and within the loving embrace of their own culture.
It took many decades for this discredited form of social engineering to be publicly exposed as a failure that did enormous damage to both the children themselves and to their families.
So great was this damage that the Australian government, a few years ago, issued a public apology to the 'stolen generation'.
Now, thanks to the money to be made, the souls saved, this discredited form of social engineering has been exported to Cambodia. In time the damage done will become apparent and, perhaps, those involved in the 'stealing' of these children will be apologising for the damage their churches, their NGOs, their governments did to Cambodia's 'stolen generation'.
Here's what I understand:
ReplyDeleteCCF only allows kids to stay in their residential places who are in really bad situations - parents travelling all over to work, physically or sexually abusive environments, parents sleeping on the street and not returning home to the old dump site at night (leaving the kids alone), kids being kept away from school. If parents aren't in a position to look after the kids properly, then they will stay at CCF 3 or 4 nights a week, and the rest at home (or whatever is appropriate).
I was told that most CCF kids (including the one I sponsor) live at home with their families. I know that more than 1500 live at home and study at CCF everyday, and much less than this live at CCF. It's worth mentioning that I was sent a photo of my sponsor child's family in the first email I got from CCF.
Here are Neeson[s own words regarding the 700+ children he has taken from families that do live, most of their life at CCF: 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. That means that 99% of the children have at least extended families and I'll repeat, "are in no immediate, high risk at home". Those are his own words and his own figures.
ReplyDeleteSo now how do you come up with all of these issues (quoting you): "who are in really bad situations - parents travelling all over to work, physically or sexually abusive environments, parents sleeping on the street and not returning home to the old dump site at night (leaving the kids alone), kids being kept away from school"
If you 'child' lives at home, how much are you paying Neeson, for education only? Most of those children attend the public school for at least half a day.
Do you realize, as you give up your 'hard earned', that Neeson had $4.5 MILLION in donations that they didn't spend in 2013 (over 40% of all the money donated)? https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/images/stories/financial/CCF_990_Form_2013.pdf
Cost for raising children in an 'orphanage' are 9 times the cost of raising the child in the family. That means that for less than the cost of raising one child in an orphanage, you could 'fix the whole family'. A family in this area, likely gets by on around $1000 a year. From his tax return of 2013, you can see that on housing and transportation alone, they spent over $2000/child!
ReplyDeleteCCF is not an orphanage you cretin. And where did you get your bullshit housing and transportation figure of $2000 per child? As if!
ReplyDeleteThat's a brand new motorbike for the family each year?
DeleteI don't care what you call them, they take children from their Mothers to be raised by paid staff in institutional care. If you are able to read and you can copy the link to 2013 tax info, look at page 2 line 4b. Then take out your calculator, or have your momma do it for you and calculate how much was spent per child.
ReplyDeletePS Then tell me it's bullshit again. Maybe we to turn your friend Neeson in to the Internal Revenue Service for filing false tax returns.
ReplyDeleteAny chance, Monsieur Cretin, that you could send the link to the relevant 2013 tax return for old codgers like me who get so easily lost in cyberspace?
ReplyDeleteAs above. You have to copy and paste it as this site doesn't allow a real link.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/images/stories/financial/CCF_990_Form_2013.pdf
OK, got it. Here it is:
ReplyDelete(Code: ) (Expenses $ 1,423,298. including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ ) CHILDCARE - CCF PROVIDES HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION TO OVER 700 IMPOVERISHED CAMBODIAN CHILDREN.
That's $2033 per child for housing and transportation.
Am I right in remembering from this blog that he children sleep in dormitories and often 3 and 4 children per bed? $2033 does seem a little steep for a shared bed!
And if the child's mom and pop are eating $1,000 a year....something is nit right here.
Correction: Not 'eating $1000 a year' but 'earning $1,000 a year.'
DeleteTo put this $2033 per child per year into perspective, a garment factory worker in Cambodia earns in the vicinity of $1,200 a year. So it is costing damn close to double the wage of garment factory worker to keep one kid in a bed in a dormitory in CCF institutional care.
Am I missing something here? If anyone can give me a logical explanation for WTF is going on here, please do. My head is reeling!
Me again, another cretin that can't tell the difference between 'eating' and 'earning'.
DeleteLine 4a of CCF's 2013 tax return is kinda interesting too if you break the figures down:
(Expenses $ 1,603,309. including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
EDUCATION - THE EDUCATION PROGRAMS PROVIDE REMEDIAL AND INTENSIVE ENGLISH READING AND WRITING, MATH AND COMPUTER STUDIES TO OVER 500 CAMBODIAN CHILDREN. AN ADDITIONAL 80 CHILDREN AGES 2-6 BENEFIT FROM DAYCARE SERVICES AND PRE-SCHOOL/KINDERGARTEN STUDY.
SEVENTEEN INFANTS AND TODDLERS RECEIVE DAY TIME CARE AT THE CCF NURSERY, WHICH IS HOUSED AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER. MORE THAN 160 STUDENTS BENEFIT FROM EVENING CLASSES AT CCF'S SATELLITE SCHOOLS. CCF'S STUDENTS ARE ALSO INTEGRATED INTO THE CAMBODIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.
That’s 760 kids receiving CCF schooling.
That’s $2019 per child for schooling each year. What kind of school do these kids go to? It costs almost double a garment factory worker’s wage to educate one kid at CCF? This seems like top-end private school education to me! WTF!
How much are the teachers paid?
Of the 500 kids that graduate each year how many go on to university or some kind of higher education?
Teachers in Cambodia often earn $125/month. The children at CCF go to public school, half days. NOW you are getting the idea. Did you see the part about $4.5 Million of 2013 donations going 'in the bank'?
ReplyDeleteThis is a scam! Why has this not been exposed?
DeleteThank you Anonymous 1.52 for locating this very interesting tax return. I feel something of a cretin myself for not having thought to go looking for it.
DeleteI have been absent from this dialogue this afternoon as I have arrived in Phnom Penh and have been busy writing, having translated and hand delivering a letter to the Minister for Justice, which I will include below.
LETTER TO CAMBODIA'S MINISTER FOR JUSTICE
ReplyDeleteMr Ang Vong Vathana
Minister of Justice
Samdech Sothearos Road
Sangkat Chaktomouk
Daun Penh
5th February 2015
Dear Mr Ang Vong Vathana
re David John Fletcher
Dear Minister
Further to my two letters to yourself on November and December 2014.
Thank you very much for responding so rapidly to my letters by sending a representative of your ministry to talk with Mr Fletcher in prison.
I have returned to Phnom Penh for a week to provide Mr Fletcher with the assistance that the British Embassy refuses to provide him in his quest for a fair trial.
I would be very grateful if you would allow me to visit you in your office, or to meet with some high-ranking representative of your ministry, to present evidence I have acquired pertaining to Mr Fletcher’s innocence. I believe, in accordance with the Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure, that Mr Fletcher should be allowed to have this evidence heard and tested in court.
I would also like to present to you with a substantial amount of evidence pertaining to the foreign Non Government Organizations that have played a significant role in the prosecution of Mr Fletcher and in seeing to it that he is denied the right to a fair trial.
I believe that one NGO in particular – Action Pour les Enfants (APLE) – should be thoroughly investigated by the Ministry for Justice with a view to determining whether or not this NGO is in serious breach of the terms of the MOU agreement that it entered into with the Cambodian government.
It seems that APLE has set itself up as an alternative police force within Cambodia and is seeking to usurp the role of those Cambodian authorities whose job it is to investigate allegations of child sex abuse.
The evidence suggests that APLE does not feel that it needs to be accountable to the Cambodian government for the way in which it conducts its activities in this country.
yours sincerely
James Ricketson
Email to Scott Neeson
ReplyDeleteCambodian Children's Fund
Dear Scott
The Cambodian Children’s Fund 2013 “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax” for has been drawn to my attention.
The registered address of the Cambodian Children’s Fund is 2461 Santa Monica Boulevarde #833, Santa Monica, CA 90404
CCF’s ‘mission’ in the document is described as follows: “ To break cycles of poverty and abuse and to create positive change in Cambodia through intervention and education for the most impoverished children and their families.”
In Line 4a the figure of $1,603,309 appears alongside a list of educational programs servicing 760 kids. This works out at roughly $2,000 per child per annum. Is this correct?
In Line 4b the figure of $1,423,298 appears alongside: “Childcare – CCF provides housing and transportation to over 700 impoverished Cambodian children.”
This works out at roughly $2,000 per child for housing and transportation per annum. Is this correct?
The document from which these figures have been gleaned is to be found at:
https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/images/stories/financial/CCF_990_Form_2013.pdf
best wishes
James Ricketson
It is a copy of their Federal Tax Return, it must be true.
DeleteDon’t forget that many or most of those are ‘double counts’ ie: children counted for housing and transportation are also counted for education. The vast majority, if not all of the students are ‘integrated into the public school system’, which means there is virtually no cost for their morning classes. Where you think they might be spending 2K, with the double count, they are actually spending 4K. Even with that they didn't spend 40% of the money they raised in 2013 and banked $4.5 MILLION!! Do you think they need your money fo that they can take more children from their families???
DeleteIf Neeson is telling the American Tax Office that it is costing him $2,000 a year to house a kid in a dormitory in a country where the basic wage for an entire family is around $1,500 a year, isn't this fraud? Massive fraud? Industrial scale fraud? Why am I reading about this on a fucking blog and not in the Cambodia Daily or the Phnom Penh Post? I have given money to CCF to sponsor a child. I feel ripped off. Pissed off. Some answers please Mr Neeson?
Delete@ Anonymous 6.10
DeleteYou are not reading this in the Post or the Daily because just as journalists can be paid by Aple to write defamatory stories about people like Liam Miller so can they be paid to write glowing stories about people like Scott Neeson or not write true stories. Aple and CCF have lots of money. This is the way things work in this stinking rotten country. Don't get me wrong I love Cambodia but the corruption sucks and pretty much everyone with money and power here is corrupt. They couldn't survive if they weren't.
Don’t forget that many or most of those are ‘double counts’ ie: children counted for housing and transportation are also counted for education. The vast majority, if not all of the students are ‘integrated into the public school system’, which means there is virtually no cost for their morning classes.
ReplyDeleteDear Scott
ReplyDeleteRather than deal with abstract figures I’d like to look at CCF’s 2013 tax return as it relates to the family CCF locked out of its house for being $12.50 behind in their rent.
Pheng Heng, aged 60, and his wife Pok Poq, aged 52 have 3 of their children in CCF residential care. These three children are also being educated by CCF.
It costs CCF approximately $2,000 per year to provide housing and transport for each of Pheng Heng and Pok Poq’s three children.
That’s $6,000 per year.
It also costs CCF roughly $2,000 a year to educate each of Pheng Heng and Pok Poq’s three children.
That’s another $6,000 per year.
If the figures the Cambodian Children’s Fund has provided to the US Tax Office are correct CCF spends $12,000 per year caring for three children.
This is roughly 10 times as much money as Pheng Heng earns when he can work.
The Cambodian Children’s Fund locked Pheng Heng, Pok Poq and their other children out of their house because they were $12.50 behind in their rent.
This is roughly one thousandth of the tax free income generated by CCF for caring for Pheng Heng and Pok Poq's children.
If I am mistaken in any of the figures I have quoted here or in the presumptions I have made, please correct me. If I am not wrong in either my figures or presumptions CCF, through its tax-deductible status, is generating a massive profit through housing and educating Pheng Heng and Pok Poq’s three children.
If this be the case you are engaged in the most reprehensible form of exploitation of the poverty of this family.
best wishes
James Ricketson
PS For readers of my blog who are unfamiliar with Pheng Heng and Pok Poq’s story see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
And read:
http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/25-scott-nesson-locks-poor-family-out.html
Charity Navigator are lagging as usual in updating their site, but CCF passes with the highest marks: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12748#.VNOPP2SUfrE
ReplyDeleteCharity Navigator bases its assessments on figures provided to it by the charity and so is not an indication of anything other than the charity's opinion of itself and how well it markets itself. Scott Neeson is good at marketing.
DeleteWrong. Charity Navigator evaluates organisation based on their financial records from the US tax office, their commitment to good governance, accountability and transparency. How they spend their money is perhaps the most important section - and in this regard, CCF passes with flying colours, with a small spend on administration and a tiny spend on fundraising.
DeleteIf it was just on "figures provided by the charity", then why do so few charities manage to reach the 95 out of 100 rating that CCF has?
This is nonsense! Are you trying to suggest that the US Tax Office evaluates CCF's "commitment to good governance, accountability and transparency?" Of course it doesn't. So which body makes these assessments? There is none. The only assessments made are by CCF itself.
DeleteBut let's just presume, for argument's sake, that there is some independent monitoring body 'evaluating' CCF? What does this evaluating body make of the fact that Scott Neeson, as a matter of principle, doe snot answer any questions relating to the administration of the Cambodian Children's Fund. None.
In the 'good governance' category perhaps CCF scores top marks (for the wrong reasons) because the NGO is run as a secret organisation that does not allow journalists to visit or to speak with children or with staff. No-one knows what goes on behind closed doors and anyone within the organisation who speaks out is sacked or, if they are a child or the parents of a child, kicked out of CCF.
As for 'accountability' I have asked Scott Neeson above to account for the fact that according to CCF's own figures one family with three children in CCF care generate $12,000 in tax free income for the NGO whilst the rest of the family survives on one tenth of this amount and receives no support from CCF? And, when $12.50 behind in their rent (one thousandth of the income generated by the 3 children) the family is locked out of its house?
An accountable organisation, a transparent organisation, would tackle the questions I have asked head on - explain to me and other readers here (and to sponsors) how it seems to be the case that the three children in care generate $12,000 but in reality this is not the case.
No answer from Scott Neeson will be forthcoming. Instead, he and his henchmen will write anonymous comment son this blog to denigrate me. The personal insults don't bother me. Indeed, some are quite amusing in their poetic (and often grammatically challenged) use of the English language.
However, the 2013 tax return cannot be written off as 'bullshit'. The figures are there for all to see and raise the very questions I am raising here.Now, whether anyone bothers to ask these questions or not is another matter. It seems not. Scott Neeson, along with Thierry Darnaudet, has a 'Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free' card that leaves him free of any form of public questioning about the Cambodian Children's Fund.
As with Somaly Mam the truth will come out eventually and all those who have been complicit in CCF scams or who have turned a blind eye will throw their hands in the air and decry him as just one bad apple in a barrel of good fruit.
One other point worth making here is that a 'small amount spent on administration' is no guarantee at all that the Cambodian Children's Fund is effective. This applies for all charities. This is one of the persistent myths about charities and NGOs whose bubble needs to be burst. Good administration is essential to efficiency and good administration can be expensive. And good administration involves assessing programs to see if they are working or not. And if not, they should be ditched. CCF, along with so many NGOs, want to be assessed for their intentions not their results.it is very easy (and cheap) to have good intentions that have bad results but which make donors and sponsors feel good.
I asked above how many of the 500 kids who 'graduate' from CCF schools go on to higher education. One could also ask how many, two yerars down the track, are gainfully employed. This is where you discover whether CCF's education program, costing $2,000 per child, is effective or not. Not in how little money was spent in the administration of the program.
Seeing as how CCF gets such a high rating for transparency and accountability you shouldn’t have too much trouble answering the following questions for your curious sponsors ands donors.
DeleteHow much do you pay your staff at CCF?
How much are CCF teachers paid per month?
Is it true you pay yourself $10,000 per month?
What donations are made to CCF that do not appear on the books?
What happened to the $1 million worth of Fortesque shares given to you by Andrew (Ziggy) Forrest?
Is it true that despite the $2,000 a year CCF spends on education the CCF kids have lower pass rates than kids who get zero $ per year spent on them?
Is it true that Kevin Tutt, who you employed to revolutionize CCF education, found that most CCF kids could not read or write.
Is it true that you fired Kevin Tutt when he began to talk about this in public?
I think the number for annual pay on the tax form is $93,000/year. I suspect plus housing, food, insurance, car, and expenses (maybe bonus). Most likely works out to more than 10K a month. Hopeful that Scott will answer the remaining very good questions.
DeleteI love this line that you use to describe Scott Neeson's activities..."If this be the case you are engaged in the most reprehensible form of exploitation of the poverty of this family." Sadly, it is the case.
ReplyDeleteIs it true that APLE arranged to sell Yang Dany and traffic her into China following her denial of the rape charges against David Fletcher, so as to silence her testimony that she wasn't raped?
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence to suggest that APLE either sold or trafficked Yang Dany to China. There is evidence, however, that APLE arranged to have her leave the country so that she could not testify in the 're-trial' promised to Mr Fletcher by the Phnom Penh Municipal Court.
DeleteAs it happened, the same judges who had promised him a rte-trial three weeks earlier had changed their minds and denied it on the grounds that certain documents had not arrived at the court in time. This was not Mr Fletcher's fault.
With no trial occurring it was probably not necessary to spirit Yang Dany to China after all. However, if she had remained in Phnom Penh she would have been available to be interviewed by curious journalists - if there were any journalists in Cambodia interested, Alas, there are not. Both APLE and CCF are untouchable.