One of the men seen above is considered to
be a dangerous pedophile worthy of a ten year jail sentence.
The other runs a multi-million dollar Non
Government Organization dedicated, amongst other things, to protecting children
from pedophiles like the other man.
One of these photos is regularly presented
as evidence that the man in it must be a pedophile. The other photo is
presented as evidence, on his website and Facebook page, that this man is a
saint-like figure dedicated to rescuing children from extreme poverty.
The NGO run by one of these men receives
$2,000 per annum to provide housing and transportation for each child in its
institutional care. And it receives a further $2,000 per annum for educating
that child.
That’s $4,000 to institutionalize one child
in a country in which the average income for a family is less than $1,500!
These photos will provide no clue as to
which man is which.
There is no evidence that either man is a
pedophile.
Scott Nesson, holding the young girl, runs
the multi-million dollar NGO that receives roughly $4,000 a year for each child
that it removes from its family and raises in an institution.
David Fletcher, surrounded by young girls,
his pockets stuffed with flowers given to him by the girls, is serving 10 years
in jail for rape.
The young woman David Fletcher allegedly
raped denies that she was raped. Her testimony is backed up by a medical report
commissioned by the Phnom Penh Municipal Court that declared her to be a
virgin.
A week before David Fletcher was arrested
and charged with rape Scott Neeson told journalist Andrew Drummond:
“There is little doubt Fletcher
devotes his time to grooming young girls….The fact is these children can be
bought. It’s difficult to stop it. The British Embassy have been told about
Fletcher. Many organizations have files on him, but nothing has happened. If
you can get this guy sent packing you are doing a service to the children
here.”
Scott Neeson has been asked several times
to produce evidence that David Fletcher was grooming young girls. He refuses to
do so.
I wrote the following email to Scott Neeson
two days ago. He has not responded. He never responds to questions put to him
by journalists – unless they are friendly to his cause and print articles
praise-worthy of his good works.
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:
best wishes
To
put this ballpark figure of $4,000 per child into perspective, consider the
story of Pheng Heng, aged 60,and his wife Pok Poq- originally posted at:
http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com/2014/11/25-scott-nesson-locks-poor-family-out.html
 |
| Pheng Heng and Pok Poq |
Scott, here is another family you know. The parents of the family that is – Pheng Heng, aged 60,and his wife Pok Poq, aged 52. You locked them out of their home last month because they were $12.50 behind in rent owed to the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
$12.50!
The Cambodian Children’s Fund has three of Pheng Heng and Pok Poq’s children in care. Given that virtually all CCF kids have at least one sponsor, this means that CCF is generating between $300 and $450 a month in income from this family without providing any financial assistance to the rest of the family.
$300 a month is 3 times Pheng Heng’s monthly wage when he has a job. He doesn’t have a job at the moment because he was badly injured in a traffic accident and has been unable to work. So what do you do, Scott, when an impoverished family is $12.50 behind in their rent? A family whose children CCF is caring for? Lock them out of their house during the rainy season.
What kind of man are you? Such insensitive, mercenary (and dare I say, inhumane) behavior is certainly not of the variety you boast about on Facebook or talk about when interviewed in your jet-set travels around the world to remind everyone what a wonderful man you are to have given up your $1 million a year job in Hollywood to help poor rubbish dump families.
How many other families have you locked out of their homes over sums as petty as $12.50?
You will not answer this question, of course, and I can only hope that in due course the media will start to ask such questions and, when you refuse to answer them, report this – along with testimonies from families you have locked locked out or families that have suffered other human rights abuses at the hands of the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
Locking families out of their homes is not the only way that your mercenary callousness reveals itself. In my last blog entry I wrote of Tath Raksa – the 15 months old baby that CCF is determined to ‘rescue’ from his loving but very poor dump-working family.
Just three days ago CCF staff went to the home of Tath Pheng and Kim Tath (the grandparents) to apply yet more pressure on them to hand over baby Raksa. Has there been any offer from the Cambodian Children’s Fund to help Raksa’s intellectually handicapped mother, his grandparents; the entire family? No, it is baby Raksa CCF is offering to help; not the family. You want Raksa for your CCF nursery. Is there a spare bed that needs to be filled?
No doubt, in due course, if you had your way, a photo of you and baby Raksa (a photogenic boy with big brown eyes) would appear on your Facebook page and hundreds of people would ‘like’ the photo, refer to you as an ‘angel’ and in various other ways heap praise on you for being such a kind and generous man. A saint!
Until such time as some arrangement can be made to help the entire family, I will be supporting it so that the grandparents can afford to resist your high pressure tactics to take baby Raksa from them.
Please tell your staff to stop pressuring Tath Pheng and Kim Tath to give Raksa up. Tell them to back off. You should not be harvesting babies in this way, anyway, Scott. You should be helping entire families.
I can only hope that it will not take as long as it did with Somaly Mam for the fraudulent aspects of the Cambodian Children’s Fund to be exposed to public view. I hope that you are exposed before TIME or some other magazine puts a photo of you on its cover, hailing you as the savior of Cambodia’s poor and powerless – a selfless man who gave up his $1 million a year job etc.; before yet another hagiographic documentary is made by filmmakers who have not bothered to do basic research into how CCF is actually run, as opposed to how your marketing machine presents is as being run.
If you desperately need a baby, Scott, find a woman you can have one with. Stop stealing other people's babies.
I wrote to Scott regarding this family as follows:
Dear Scott
Rather 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.
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
Scott has not responded to this email.
James, your calculation only take into account how much was spent on each child. It doesn't calculate how much mney was actually RAISED for each of the children that he has taken from families. You see, he raised $10.6 MILLION, spent $6.1, MILLION, BANKED $4.5 MILLION! Yes taking children is a very profitable business for Neeson!! Does he need your donation?
ReplyDeleteWhere are the Cambodian newspapers on this story??!!!
Your all taking the figures out of contect to defame Svott Neeson. Your a useless piece of excrement Mr James Fucking Ricketson. Why dont you crawl back under your rock and die with the other rock spliders ?
ReplyDeleteWell, at least you got the spelling of 'excrement' right!
DeleteCan you please place these figures in the context you believe they deserve?
cheers
James 'rock splider' Ricketson
PS How many times do I need to caution you about the dangers of blogging whilst drinking!
Anonymous 5:45 So you think these figures defame Svott Neeson? Now isn't that interesting? That's Neeson that looks like the peodophile above, right?
DeleteWhere is the 'International Award Winning Newspaper on this?? They have peopl that they call 'Journalists', don't they?
It's rather dangerous to accuse a person of being a pedophile based on just a picture of this person holding a child, but looking at the pictures of Scott Neeson holding and hugging children all the time, he's definitely not in the position to accuse others of inappropriate behavior towards children or grooming young girls based on gossip and scuttlebutt.
DeleteYet APLE uses pictures, such as the two above, as 'evidence' of foreigners behaving inappropriate and grooming children.
But let's skip the whole 'Who's the pedophile' quiz and focus on the money involved.
So, Scott Neeson collects over $10M from donors every year and allegedly spends only 65% of it towards the actual beneficials, correct?
How much did David Fletcher's charity collect per year and what percentage of this amount was directly spend on the families around the Stung Meanchey Dump?
James, Seems some Cambodian expats or NGO Directors, use very colorful language in describing you. That seems very strange in light of the good work you are doing.
ReplyDeleteThis does not bother me. Sticks and stones etc.
DeleteI am very curious to have explained to me, however, just what context these US Tax Office figures can be placed in such that CCF appears not to be involved in a huge scam.
I am not good with money, with figures, with maths and it may be that my guestimates are based on some false assumptions. If so, could someone please point them out to me. I will quite happily correct my figures if they are wrong. Any mathematicians, economists or statisticians out there who can help me out here? Better still, anyone from the Cambodian Children's Fund who can explain just what the figures in the US Tax Return mean if they do not mean what they seem to mean - namely that it costs roughly $4,000 a year to house and educate one kid in an institution. I have heard from various sources these kids get to share a bid with 3 other kids. Is this so?
Come on, Scott, stop pretending that you do not receive my emails? That you do not read this blog. If I have my facts wrong in any of what I write here please point my errors out to me - in public.
I've worked a major portion of my life as a Financial Analyst. Appears to me that you've gotten it right! I don't think I'll be making any donations to Scott Neeson in the near future.
ReplyDeleteAm I missing something here ? How is CCF a charity a non profit organisation when Scott Neeson is paying himself 10k per month plus all expenses.
ReplyDeleteEarning 10k per month in Cambodia is like earning over million $$ back in the states. And who is paying for his Feb holiday in Africa? CCF?
More of this James. I hope you don't stop putting pressure on this guy.
ReplyDeleteI started asking questions of Scott in 2011. I will not stop until I get answers.
DeleteMr james Fucking Ricketson what gives you the right to ask questions of everyone and then get your 'knickers in a twist' when they don't answer your stupid questions? Why would Scott Neeson bother even even read the crap you write? Why would he waste his time answering your questions? He is too busy doing useful things. Not like you who is just criticising and tearing things down because you are a loser who wants to big node yourself with your blog.
ReplyDeleteYea, Scott, you are doing very useful things like taking children from their families and creating the next lost generation! Over 700 children, you've got to be fucking kidding me!!
DeleteDear Anonymous 5.44
DeleteI have said this before. I will say it again. I am a documentary filmmaker, a journalist and a blogger. It is an integral part of my job to ask questions.
Given that Scott talks about transparency and accountability why is he neither transparent nor accountable? Which he would or could be if he answered questions?
You have asked me some questions here. Do I respond with "What right do you have to ask me questions?" No, I try to answer them. And if my answers are inadequate or clearly wrong I fully expect you to come back and say, "Mr Ricketson, you are wrong - for the following reasons." This is what dialogue is all about.
You have no idea about the 'useful things' I do so perhaps you should question the assumption behind this statement.
I guess 'big node' is meant to be 'big note'. The same could be applied, I guess, to any journalist who puts his or her name to articles.
Where are the stories by Neeson, on how they have helped the families and RETURNED the children to the family? Seems very much like, they take the children with only one goal in mind. DONATIONS!!
ReplyDeleteIndeed, where are the stories about returned children? Stories about families in distress whose lives have been restored, improved, through CCF intervention?
DeleteYesterday, I filmed with a family who have had 8 years of experience with CCF intervention. I will write more about this later but here, in a nutshell, if the experience of this family.
There are 8 children in the family. There is no father. The mother works in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump with one of her children, to support herself and the other two. Five of her children live in CCF institutions.
The five children in CCF care are, in terms of the CCF 2013 Tax Return, being housed, transported and educated by CCF to the tune of $4,000 per year per child. Bear in mind, these are not my figures plucked out of nowhere. These are the figures CCF has presented to the US Tax Office.
So, if these figures are correct (and they'd better be or Neeson is guilty of tax fraud) CCF is spending $4,000 per year to care for each of this woman's five children. That's $20,000 a year.
The mother and her son earn,between them, around $1,000 a year working in the rubbish dump.
I asked the mother, during an interview, what assistance CCF gives to her and her other three children? The answer was "Ten kilos of rice a week."
Ten kilos of rice costs around $5 or $6.
So, whilst caring for this mother's five children is generating $400 per week, only $5 or $6 is going to the family!
I wanted to be sure that I had heard right; that nothing had been lost in translation, so I asked the question three times. Each time the answer came back, "Ten kilos of rice per week."
Further questioning revealed that if anyone in her family got sick CCF would give the mother $10 or $20.
I wonder (and I am wondering aloud, Scott) if this 10 kilos a week of rice a week and the occasional $10 and $20 is what your community outreach programs amount to?
Let's look at those figures again. These are your figures.
This mother's five children generate $20,000 of income for CCF (sponsors and donors) per annum and yet you give the mother and her other three children between $250 and $300 of rice per annum!
That's 1.5% Scott!
98.5% of income generated caring for 5 children goes to CCF each year and 1.5% goes to the family.
And the occasional $10 and $20 if there is an illness in the family!?
I will have more to write about this later, Scott, but in the meantime please do feel free to point out to me and my readers if the assumptions have made here about income generated or income provided to the family is incorrect.
If your numbers are correct Ricketson (aka MJFR), then this is a national disgrace!! Are you the only journalist in Cambodia that wishes to report on what Neeson does? Where is the media, where is the POST?? What a travesty to let this go on.
DeleteDid this woman have a copy of the 'agreement' that she 'thumb printed'? Does she read and could she understand what she 'signed'? was she 'COERCED' to give up her children? Does Neeson have a copy for each child that he can show the media. This is just wrong, Wrong, WRONG!! This man should be in prison.
As for these figures, they are not mine. They are CCF's figures as presented to the US Tax Office, so I cannot be accused here of 'bullshit' - which is as close as anyone on the CCF camp comes to answering questions.
DeleteI will not conjecture here as to why neither the Cambodia Daily nor the Phnom Penh Post will ask Scott Neeson questions or engage in any kind of investigation into the way in which the Cambodian Children's Fund makes money (a lot of money) out of 'caring' for the the children of materially poor Cambodian families.
I wonder if, on reading about this woman whose five children are generating $20,000 a year on donations and sponsorships for CCF, if anyone from the Daily or the Post will even bother to make contact with me?
I think it is a journalist's job to be sceptical, to take what you hear and read with a grain of salt. I expect other journalists to do that with what they read on this blog. However, I would also expect them to make contact with me and say words to the effect of, "James, the family you have written about, the family with five kids in CCF care, is a very interesting one. Could you put me in contact with the mother. I would love to talk with her?" To which I would reply: "Of course, I will take you to meet her whenever is convenient to you."
My guess is that there will be no call from the Post or the Daily; that there will be no email. CCF and APLE are, for reasons I will allow readers to conjecture upon, free to do as they please without any Post or Daily investigation into their modus operandi!
I would love to be pleasantly surprised here but I doubt that I will be. Both CCF and APLE have 'get-out-of-jail-free' cards.
dear mr. ricketson,
ReplyDeleteit seems that the trick of denying convicts to have an appeal hearing
works not only on the david fletcher and matt harland case but also many
others:
https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/british-fraudsters-appeal-dismissed-by-court-77554/
Mr. seila gives his comment on the recent CRC report:
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/kids-safety-improving-report
For what reason both cambodiadaily and phnompenhpost are using aple as a
constant reference while denying any comment on the destructive nature
of this ngo is a miracle to me.
It's very quite , are you still around or has the group assasination
gang got hold of you already ?
One of the tricks that Aple plays to make sure there is no appeal hearing is to pay the director of the jail not to deliver any of the documents to the court in time. That way the appeal is never heard. Have you noticed how often this happens that the appeal is thrown out because the documents did not get to the court in time?
DeleteI can't really comment on this other than to say that I know, form experience with Mr Fletcher, how difficult it is for a prisoner to get documents in and out of jail. The only way is by paying a prison guard to smuggle them out of the prison - if, that is, you have no other person who can do so.
DeleteTo smuggle requires money and money is often something a prisoner has little or none of. But even if a prisoner does have money, the process of filling out forms and lodging any form of court document is long and complicated for a non-Khmer-speaking person. it also involves (and I know this because I have had to do it) sitting in the Admin section of the Phnom p[enh Municipal Court waiting for your papers to be processed, paying an administration fee (which is not much) and then thumb-printing the documents.
This cannot be achieved by paying a guard to smuggle documents out of jail.
The problem is not solved even if you have a lawyer - unless you have a good one. In the case of David Fletcher, he employed a lawyer to do all he necessary paperwork. $6,000 in all to lodge the relevant documents in court. When I became involved the lawyer was asking for more money because Mr Fletcher's case was, he said, "very complicated."
Mr Fletcher did not have more money so it was stalemate.
I asked the lawyer if I could look at some of the court documents. He did not want to show me anything but eventually, under pressure from Mr Fletcher, relented.
I went through these documents and stumbled upon the medical report that declared the alleged rape victim to be a virgin. I asked the lawyer about this document and he did not know about it. It became clear, from talking with him, that despite having been paid $6,000 he had not even read through substantial parts of Mr Fletcher's file.
I will not conjecture aloud as to what I think was going on here but it is easy to see how a convicted person's appeal can very easily be thrown out if there is a desire on the part of someone or some organisation that the relevant documents do not get lodged in time.
"I will not conjecture aloud as to what I think was going on here..."
DeleteWhy not James? It's clear what went on...
One of the reasons why the Child Protection Industry is a true industry is that there's all kind of businesses on the side of it. One of these businesses is that of the lawyers involved.
$6000 is a lot of money to spend on a Cambodian lawyer. This lawyer obviously never ever had the intention to defend David's case. The $6000 was just an attempt to take all of David's reserves, so he'd have no money left for a real lawyer.
On top of the $6000, this lawyer was obviously paid by somebody else too; a person or an organisation with an interest in the outcome of the case!
You ask pick the pedophile in the pictures below - well that is easy.
ReplyDeleteFirst lets coma per the two.
Neeson - a corporate executive who had a great career and has built an organisation that helps impoverished children.
Fletcher - a convicted criminal who had sex with a child and then came to Cambodia and masked helping kids so that he could continue to touch and be with them in an inappropriate manner.
What a disgusting man you are Ricketson - how could you ever compare these two people.
There is a reason why mainstream media, Film Australia and companies have given you the flick. Its because they recognise that you a fool who was never successful and is now jealous of people who're successful.
And before you go and respond by saying that you are an acclaimed filmmaker and so forth, stop living in the 70's - because you have done nothing since then!
Let me help with your description of Neeson....A man who has taken over 700 children from their families, pockets over $90K a year plus benefits, plus expenses from donors. Never graduated high school himself, never been a parent to his own children, yet believes he should direct these 799 children to create a new 'lost generation'..
DeleteHired a convicted felon, who stole drugs during a police raid to resell, while he was working for the Australian Police, as his head of Child Protection Unit.
Slandered David Fletcher to 'start the ball rolling' to incarcerate an innocent man.
Takes children by coercion and uses impoverished families to raise millions that he can't even spend.
I'll take Fletcher anytime, Scott!
Dear Anonymous 11.53
DeleteWelcome back. I thought you had deserted us.
Firstly, the answer to my own provocative question was:
"There is no evidence that either man is a pedophile."
Deliberately provocative because it is often the case that in Cambodia are deemed to be pedophiles on the basis of photos far less suggestive than the one of Scott with the young girl in his arms.
If you have evidence that Mr Fletcher was touching young girls in an inappropriate manner? If so, have you provided this evidence to the appropriate authorities?
Where have I claimed to be an acclaimed filmmaker?
Most importantly, what does my past, the 70s, my success or lack thereof have to do with the question in hand here?
How is it that Scott Neeson can claim, to the US tax office, that is costs CCF roughly $4,000 per annum to accommodate and educate one child in a CCF institution? One in which children sleep 3 and 4 to a bed?
Please answer this question if you can? If you can't, of what value are your insults to this conversation?
I agree it looks like that $4000 is for accomodation and school but you now it is spent on a lit of other things as well as that but you are just manipulating the numbers because you hate Scott Nesson a man who is superior to you in every way and you know it.
ReplyDeleteIf the money was spent on a lot of other things why does it appear in these columns? A tax return is supposed to be a true and accurate record of how money has been spent. There is no 'lot of other things' category.
DeleteRegardless, do you believe that it costs around $4,000 to accommodate, educate and do a 'lots of other things' for one child living in institutional care? This is more than double the basic wage for an entire family and, in the case of the family I spoke with yesterday, the sum total of $20,000 to taker care of five children is 10 times the income of the family. Do you think this is right?
Does 'a lot of other things' also include a reserved amount of $30.000 to pay the family of a young girl, such as Yang Dany's mother, to make false accusations against a foreigner, such as David Fletcher, who was in the way of Scott Neeson???
DeleteAPLE normally offers $5000 to families in return for a false accusation against a foreigner. Who offered the remaining $25.000 to Yang Dany's mother???
Is that what it was worth to you, Scott, to put David Fletcher behind bars? What other costs of APLE's thorough investigation into David Fletcher has CCF covered for and placed in the hidden 'a lot of other things' column?
(1) It was NOT the Cambodian Children's Fund that suggested to Kheang Sekun that she could get $30,000 compensation if Yang Dany accused Mr Fletcher of rape.
Delete(2) Yes, $5,000 is the usual figure mentioned as being offered to kids and their families to sign documents with their thumb prints accusing men of sex abuse. These documents are always written by someone else - either the police or an NGO.
I repeat, there is no evidence at all that I have come up with to suggest that CCF was involved in the $30,000 compensation offer.There is a good deal of evidence that this figure was put into Kheang Sekun's mind by the police and an NGO and that she was convinced she would get the money of a complaint was filed.
To date Sekun has received no money at all from anyone and she is not happy about it. APLE has, however, given her money to move out of the house she was living in when I met and filmed with her - on the condition that she not talk to anyone in the media.
In the meantime, APLE has arranged for Yang Dany to go to China so that she also cannot talk to the media. Both Yang Dany and her mother, Sekun, were planning to tell the truth in the trial that had been promised to Mr Fletcher in Nov. When this became apparent to APLE Yang Dany left town and the judges decided that Mr Fletvher did not deserve a fair trial after all.
Join the dots.
It was just a question James, because their's still so many dots to join.
Delete$30.000 is a rare amount to be offered by APLE. It's usually $5000 that APLE promises (but never pays).
The amount of people and NGOs involved in David's investigation and prosecution is also exceptionally high. That just raises additional questions.
Yes, there are lots of dots to be joined and I have to be careful not to join them too soon. It is one thing to conjecture, to come up with theories, but ultimately it is only facts that matter in any court - whether it be a literal court or the court of public opinion.
DeleteYes, there were/are a large number of people involved in the pursuit and prosecution of David Fletcher on the basis of no solid evidence. However, this doe snot necessarily imply a conspiracy. All those who delated, in the famous story, that he Emperor's Clothes were very fine indeed, even though they sam a man in his underwear, were not engaged in a conspiracy. Each of them felt that the others cold see the clothes that they could not.
It is possible, because of the sheer volume of smoke (scuttlebutt) generated by Peter Hogan, and then amplified by Scott Neeson, that all those involved in Fletcher's pursuit believed that someone amongst them must have 'the smoking gun' when none of them did. Then, when it became apparent that the Emperor had no clothes, that there was no evidence, none of those who had put so much effort into persecuting Fletcher could afford to admit to being wrong without significant loss of face.
Rather than say,"I have no evidence" or "We have no evidence", all involved - CEOP, SISHA, APLE, CCF, the FCO, LICADHO - have decided to remain mute or to anonymously attack me for pointing out that none of them have any evidence.
It does not speak highly of the professional or personal integrity of a lot of people (including those working in the list of NGOs and organisations above) that they cannot admit to making a mistake; that they would prefer to see a man die in jail to uttering a face-saving phrase as simple as, "I/we believe David Fletcher is entitled to a fair trial."
dear mr.ricketson,
ReplyDeleteYour blog demonstrates what has become of the world we live in. I feel that we already live in a world of lies, deceit, false information, denial of information, victimized by Governments, Lobbygroups,NGO and the Media. All this is possible because APLE, and the rest of the NGO World in Cambodia, have reached a proportion of influence that is equivalent to the Lobby Groups running many of the western world governments.
For your info: There are 2,600 NGOs registered with the Cambodian government, employing some 43,000 people. The number of unregistered NGO in Cambodia could even top that figure !
Now one gets a better perspective why an estimated 80,000 people (including those ngo not registered and volunteers working there) don't want to give up their "I am Good" happy go lucky lifestyle for nothing, not even for Human Rights and Justice..
Imagine if 80,000 people, mostly from western countries and their dependent local slaves (like Samleang Seila, Yi Moden of APLE) would all of a sudden become "Normal" People again. Where would that leave their source of income and career ?
It's time for the Cambodian Government to pull the brake and regulate the NGO Sector - which it has been fighting since Years to become more transparent.
ReplyDeleteDear Dr Pung
President
LICADHO
Dear Dr Pung
Are NGOs in Cambodia to help poor Cambodians or to help themselves?
The CCF describes its ‘mission’ in Cambodia 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.”
The Cambodian Children’s Fund 2013 “Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax” is to be found at:
https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/images/stories/financial/CCF_990_Form_2013.pdf
In Line 4a the figure of $1,603,309 appears alongside a list of educational programs servicing 760 kids.
CCF claims to be spending roughly $2,000 per child per annum for education.
Does this figure seem realistic, Dr Pung, in a country in which the per capita income of most Cambodian families is below $1,500?
In Line 4b the figure of $1,423,298 appears alongside:
“Childcare – CCF provides housing and transportation to over 700 impoverished Cambodian children.”
CCF claims to be spending roughly $2,000 per child for housing and transportation per annum. These children sleep in dormitories, often 3 and 4 to a bed.
How and why does it cost more to house and educate one Cambodian child in a CCF institution for one year than it costs for an Cambodian entire family to live for one year?
Given that all the 700 children in institutional care at CCF are going to school, the figures for education and housing can be added together.
Scott Neeson is claiming, to the US Tax Office, that CCF is spending roughly $4,000 to house and educate one Cambodian child.
Consider 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.
According to the figures Scott Neeson has provided to the US Tax Office CCF is spending $12,000 per year caring for Pheng Heng and Pok Poq three children. This is roughly 10 times as much money as Pheng Heng earns when he can work.
Does it make any sense, Dr Pung, that CCF , locks Pheng Heng and Pok Poq and their other children out of their house because they were $12.50 behind in their rent?
To find out more about this family locked out of their home visit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
And read:
http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/25-scott-nesson-locks-poor-family-out.html
…to be continued…
….A few days ago I filmed with a family that has had 8 years of experience with CCF intervention in its life. I will keep the identity of the family secret for the time being as I do not want its members to be subject to the harassment that Pheng Heng and Pok Poq experienced when I made their story public.
ReplyDeleteThere are 8 children in the family. There is no father. The mother works in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump with one of her children, to support herself and two of her other children. Hers and her son’s income combined per year is $1,000.
Five of this mother’s children are in CCF residential care.
If CCF 2013 Tax Return is correct, these five children are being housed, transported and educated by CCF to the tune of $4,000 per year per child.
That's $20,000 a year.
I asked the mother during a filmed interview what assistance CCF gives to her and her other three children? The answer was "Ten kilos of rice a week."
Ten kilos of rice costs around $5 or $6.
So, whilst caring for this mother's five children is generating $400 per week in donations and sponsorship, only $5 or $6 is going to the family!
Further questioning revealed that if anyone in her family got sick CCF would give the mother $10 or $20.
This mother's five children generate $20,000 of income for CCF (sponsors and donors) per annum and yet CCF gives the mother and her other three children between $250 and $300 of rice per annum!
This single mother receives 1.5% of income raised by CCF to care for her five children. 98.5% of money raised through sponsorships and donations goes to the Cambodian Children’s Fund.
This mother lost her home and land when she was unable to meet interest payments from a money lender. She needs $4,000 to buy a new home and land and $1,000 to set up a business to support herself and all of her family.
The Cambodian Children’s Fund could make the entire family self-sufficient with just three months of the income the NGO receives to take care of this mother’s five children.
Dr Pung, why does LICADHO allow this exploitation of impoverished Cambodian families to occur without uttering one word of protest?
best wishes
James Ricketson
James, Kek Pung will not respond to your message because asking CCF to be transparent and accountable would open up a Pandora's Box of questions that could be asked of all the other 2,600 NGOs registered to work in Cambodia.
ReplyDeleteIf it is true that there are 43,000 NGOs working in Cambodia and each one is earning $500 per week, or $25,000 per year, the wages bill alone comes to more than $1 billion.
Maybe the average NGO earns less than $500 a week. I do not know. (Does anyone?) but even if 43,000 NGOs only earned $400 per week that's an $860 million wages bill per annum.
My guess is that there are 43,000 NGOs who do not want anyone to know how their money is spent.
SCAMBODIA!
Anonymous Feb 8 11.47pm - you are an absolute retard. 43,000 NGO's - where on earth did you pluck that figure from. It si suggest that there are about 3000 NGO's around the country and the numbers are declining. If you are going to join Ricketson's fairy land of bullshit can you at least make it slightly believable.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 12.15 am
DeleteI think it clear that the 43,000 NGOs was a reference to the number of NGO personnel, not to the number of NGOs.
I have no idea if the figure of 43,000 is accurate or not. Seems very high to me. Does anyone know?
Any of you who might wish to see the Neeson gets his 'just deserts' for the harm that he has done with his slander and lies about David, might wish to visit this site: http://greatnonprofits.org/org/cambodian-childrens-fund and write a review of what you think of Neeson's operation. This site is so important to him that, I believe, he has 3 of his Board Members assigned to monitoring the site. He brags about his 5-star status, perhaps you can help him with that. He also posts the link on many of his web pages to brag about their high acclaim. You can be quite sure that he will see your comments. All that is required is a simple registration: email, screen name and create a password. Then you must confirm your password.
ReplyDeletePlease feel free to comment as you like, I'm sure many people will be interested in what you have to say. Some possible topics might include:
How you feel about him taking 700 children from their homes
If you think his acts are so atrocious that he sould be jailed for them
How you feel about his taking in almost $30,000 a day while doing almost nothing to support the families of those children.
How you feel about him having his own 'police force' (CPU) run by a convicted felon
Where does the money go that is not reported on his US tax return that he receives from the UK, 2 organizations in Australia and another in Hong Kong
Why he feels it appropriate to be holding/photographed with young topless Cambodian girls
Why doesn't he return these 700+ children to their families and help the families on a permanent basis?
Too many topics to list, but it is important that you go to the site and express your opinion: http://greatnonprofits.org/org/cambodian-childrens-fund