Dear Scott
It is clear from the article below that at least some of Gina
Rinehart’s 9 Cambodian orphans have families.
Is it you who is responsible for misrepresenting
these girls as ‘orphans’ or is it the journalist who wrote the article?
Given that 75% of ‘orphans’ in Cambodian
‘orphanages’ are not orphans, and given the role that the concept of ‘orphan’
plays in the marketing strategies of so many NGOs, could you please clarify
your position here.
Those who advocate on your behalf on this blog will
insist that you are too busy to waste your time reading it so I am sending this
to you as an email and copying it to others in the media, including the
journalist who wrote it, Lucie Morris
Marr, who also have an interest in just how it is that a scholarship program to
assist promising young Cambodian students became a rescue mission of orphans.
Given that you do not answer questions from the
media as a matter of principle, I can only conjecture as to what has happened
her. It seems that Gina Rinehart and Steve Morrish have had only the very best
of intentions in setting up the Hope scholarship program but that when you
became involved the program was too good an opportunity for you to pass up as a
propaganda tool. If you could convince the world that these girls were ‘orphans’
your reputation as someone who ‘rescues’ impoverished children and improved
their lot in life could be enhanced.
On the other hand, it could be that Lucie Morris
Marr could not resist the temptation to spice her article up a bit by
re-branding promising students as ‘orphans’.
I trust that either you or Lucie will clarify just
why it is that Gina Rinehart’s 9 ‘Cambodian daughters’ are now referred to as ‘orphans’
when they are not?
Or, if any of the girls are orphans, how many?
***
·
SISHA extends a huge thank you to Gina Rinehart who
generously donated the funds for our new Hope Scholarship Program. Thanks to
these funds and Gina's commitment to the organisation, SISHA was able to select
three girls to study for a Law degree.
SISHA received the go-ahead last week from Mrs
Rinehart and acted fast to select 3 of our top students from the Youth Legal
Rights Course, just in time to enroll at the Royal University of Law and
Economics in Phnom Penh this week. All the girls are from the Phnom Penh area
and until last week, had no chance of going to study at university. The Hope
Scholarship offers a chance of a lifetime for these girls and their
families.
Two of the girls were able to enroll straight away
and begin this week. They have chosen to major in Law and will study for 4
years. The third girl selected will begin her degree course next year, and will
spend this year gaining the appropriate qualifications to enter university with
the help and crucial support of SISHA.
The Hope Scholarship pledges full support
to the new students for the entire 4 years of their degrees, covering tuition
and all other costs related to their studies. SISHA
also offers the computers, facilities and guidance available at our office to
the three recipients and will continuously encourage and support the girls
in becoming outstanding citizens and role models for their peers and society.
In addition, once the girls complete their studies they will be offered up to 6
months of work and practical experience here at SISHA's headquarters, where
they can pick up the skills necessary for a successful career.
All the girls and their families were
absolutely delighted at the news of the scholarship and
are launching into their new lives and new hope for the future this week.
SISHA's hope is that by providing the youth of Cambodia with an education
through the Youth Legal Rights Course and offering the most outstanding
students the chance of a university degree, we can create a generation of
responsible citizens who are aware of their rights and can use
their knowledge to create a better society.
The Youth Legal Rights Course will continue to
reach more young people in 2011, and SISHA hopes to extend the Hope Scholarship
to more of our top students each year.
The anonymous troll representatives of Scott Neeson, Steve Morrish, McCabe, Thierry Darnaudet and Samleang Seila but also Naly Pilorge use similar tactics used by violent religions like Islam, Christianity etc.
ReplyDeleteWhen asked uncomfortable and difficult to answer questions they respond with:
" How dare you to aks this question ?"
Is is the same with Religions that punish (or punished in the past) anyone who DARES to question the existence of their god and thereby threaten the authority of those that proudly declare to represent god on earth (PRIESTS). They call it blasphemy, which gives them the tools to silence and even kill people.
In the Human Rights Org. Licado a similar policy seems to be in place. There Naly Pilorge answers
"I cannot answer because i need to protect the parties involved" and in order to silence any further questions declares "We have other findings" without elaborating what they may be. Any questions about the human rights of David Fletcher, for example, cannot be answered because the authority of Licado is equal to god in the above example.
The same is true for the 700+ kids that are "under the wings" of Scott Neeson's CCF. Parents and Staff aswell as the Kids are lectured that no Question from the OUTSIDE ever to be answered. I wonder what kind of threats CCF, but also APLE, uses in order to keep everyone streamlined. Scientology keeps popping up in my mind. They seem to use similar tactics for anyone trying to "get out" !
So my question here is:
"
Why the secrecy and utter silence Mr Neeson about Gina Rinehart's orphans if you (your NGO, CCF) claim to be only "doing good" ?
Why the OMERTA that seems to be spreading like cancer in Cambodia and includes even the Press ?
What do you people have to hide or are you simply scared that you loose your source of income and thereby feel your lifestyle being threatened ?
Yes, the silence on the part of LICADHO regarding the human rights of all those children removed from their families is deafening. Why is LICADHO not advocating on behalf of the 75% of ‘orphans’ in Cambodian orphanages who are not orphans? And on behalf of the parents of these ‘orphans’? Why does LICADHO not suggest to all the NGOs in the business of removing children from their homes and passing them off to donors and sponsors as orphans:
Delete“What you are doing is wrong. It is a violation of the human rights of the children and their families. You should be providing assistance to materially poor families so that their children can remain in the family home; not removing them, placing them in institutional care and using them to tug on the heart-strings (and open the wallets) of sponsors and donors who believe the kids to be orphans.”
LICADHO could, at the very least, offer some moral guidance here.
Ultimately, however, it is up to the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Cambodian government, to say to NGOs that remove children:
“You have six months to return these ‘orphans’ to their families in accordance with a detailed family re-integration program, or you must leave Cambodia. We expect you to help families and communities and not just take Cambodian children to bring them up in institutions. Please let the Ministry of Social Affairs know of your plans to help communities and families over the coming years within the next six months or close your NGO down.”
As I wrote, it seems to me on the basis of the little I know, that the scholarship program is a good thing for the girls concerned and I can’t see that Morrish or Rinehart have done anything wrong. SISHA’S suggestion that the girls’ allowance be cut from $250 a month to $100 a month strikes me as very sensible thinking on the part of Morrish. There are dangers inherent in the girls becoming accustomed to a monthly allowance that is twice the wage of a garment factory worker, however. There is also danger in flying the girls around the world on holiday and getting them accustomed to a lifestyle it is highly unlikely they will be able to afford when they leave university. And I would like to think (and I hope) that the families of the girls are also receiving assistance.
So three of the girls are not orphans but how do you know the other six arent? You don’t. You just want to attack and tear down people that do something to help other people not like you who just keeps a blog filled with hate. Scott Neeson is giving these girls a chance they didn’t have before and youd be happy to stop him. You are a cunt Ricketson and should crawl under a rock and die like the scum you are.
ReplyDeleteIts not Neeson who is giving the scholarships you fucktard. Its Gina Rinehart. Neeson is just trying to cash in on it by presenting himself as the hotshot who found the poor orphan girls wandering the back streets of Phnom Penh and rescued them. Three cheers for Scott Neeson Knight in Shining Armour.
DeleteAnonymous 4.10, I know that dealing with facts is not a strong point of yours but please do note that I have asked Neeson if the other 6 girls are orphans.
DeleteMy wife works at an ngo that has an ex sisha staff member working them. Im not going to name names to protect the ngo so dont ask. The ex sisha staff member stated that none of the girls are orphans. All of them have parents anf family.
ReplyDeleteI have sent the following email to Bob Tufts - a member of the Cambodian Children's Fund board:
ReplyDelete"Dear Bob
As you will be well aware, Scott Neeson does not answer questions from the media. He relies on his publicity machine to inform the media what to publish and, for the most part, the media obliges.
Is this a matter of concern for either yourself or other members of the Cambodian Children's Fund board?
The weight of evidence suggests that not one of the young women referred to as 'orphans' and 'Gina Rinehart's daughters' is in fact an orphan. All of the 'orphans', it seems, have families.
If an honest mistake has been made by Lucie Marr Morris, of if her newspaper has decided to spice up her story a little by re-branind these girls as 'orphans', will the Cambhodian Children's Fund be issuing a statement correcting this misinformation?
If Scott Neeson and CCF have, in fact, led Lucie Marr Morris to believe that the young women are 'orphans', why?"
Lucie Morris Marr has not responded to my emails. It may be that (a) She made an mistake re her use of the word 'orphans', (b) a sub-editor or editor thought to spice up the article by rebranding the girls as orphans, (c) CCF has not been clear in its description of the girls to Lucie Morris Marr and (d) CCF has deliberately mislead Lucie Morris Marr.
Either Scott Neeson or Lucie Morris Marr owes readers of the article an explanation.
it is to be hoped that someone from the mainstream media, armed with photos of the girls, will go to Steung Meanchy and ask around. I am sure it would not take too long to locate the families and confirm that the girls are not orphans and find out whether or not the families of the girls have received assistance from Rinehart and CCF.
The following extracts from an article, written by Stephanie Wood in Feb 2014 for the Sydney Morning Herald, throws some light on the 'orphan' question:
ReplyDeleteStephanie Wood's slightly edited article:
“Gina Rinehart reveals her soft side, mothering nine Cambodian students
Gina Rinehart's…relationship with nine young Cambodian women from poor backgrounds has been conducted somewhat more discreetly.
''She has super-invested in these girls,'' said Sean Looney, a former staffer at SISHA, the Phnom Penh-based organisation that manages Mrs Rinehart's ''Hope Scholarship'' program.
It's unclear what triggered the mining magnate's interest in mothering girls who aren't her own - and buying them gifts including stilettos and iPads….
Mrs Rinehart's support is not just financial - emails from Mr Huang make it clear that she takes an interest in the welfare of the scholarship holders as well.
Make sure the ''nice cook'' is retained, she wrote in a 2013 email seen by Fairfax Media in which she expressed concern the girls not be distracted from their studies by domestic matters.
The beneficiaries - chosen for the scholarship based on their academic achievements at school - live near the university with the housekeeper/cook.
Cambodian sources say Mrs Rinehart's manner with the girls is ''lovely and very warm'', and that she's generous with gifts that have also included motorbikes.
SISHA staff suggested she decrease her monthly allowances to the girls - from $250 each a month to $100 - given that it's unlikely they will earn that sort of money when they enter the Cambodian workforce.
The first thing a new Hope Scholarship girl gets is a passport so they can be taken to Singapore or Bangkok for full medical check-ups.
When Mrs Rinehart stays in Phnom Penh, she checks into the luxury Raffles Hotel Le Royal, where she has hosted the girls for extravagant buffet dinners. At Christmas, they visited her in Siem Reap.
''She'll come to Cambodia and stay a night or two,'' says a Cambodian insider. ''And she only has eyes for them, too. She doesn't want to talk to program staff or anything, she just wants to see the girls.''
Mrs Rinehart keeps in contact with the girls via email, sending them photos and encouragement. ''She always responds to their emails, but doesn't wish to intrude on their studies other than for her visits,'' Mr Huang said.
''She looks forward to seeing them each year, including twice when she has flown them to Kuala Lumpur so they could be with her when she received international awards.''
During one such visit to Kuala Lumpur, some of the girls joined her at a fancy event.
Before the event, she played mother, taking the girls to buy high-heeled shoes and to get their hair done.
According to one witness, Mrs Rinehart told the girls they didn't need to have their make-up done professionally because she said they were beautiful just the way they were."
***
The question is: How and why did the story change from Mr Rinehart assisting some smart students from materially poor families to her having ‘adopted’ 9 orphan Cambodian girls? In a country in which 75% of children in orphanages are not orphans and in which 'orphans' are a powerful marketing tool for NGOs, it is important to distinguish between 'clever student from poor family' and 'orphan'.
There is not much point going on with this story unless you can get the facts from the person who started the program and who selected the girls. Haven't we already been told and seen evidence that it was Morrish?
ReplyDeleteSteve is not responding to my emails or to the emails sent to him by others in the media. I am not sure why as it seems, from what I read on the internet, that he has never claimed that the girls are orphans.
ReplyDeleteThe next step is to track down the girls and their families. This would not be very hard for any journalist with a bit of time and patience. The question is: "Does the English language media in Cambodia (and Khmer, of course) think it is of any importance whether or not these girls are 'orphan's or merely good students from poor families.
James - do you blame Steve for not responding. Im a good friend of his and have to say that you and other media/posters have treated him unfairly over the past 2 years would be an under statement. Why would he want to respond now and get involved with this?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 11.03
DeleteHow can Steve NOT be involved in the question "Are the girls orphans or not?" when it is he who initiated the program?
As for me treating Steve unfairly, please cit me one example.
The kost recent example of me treating Steve in any way at all (fairly or unfairly) is to be found above:
"As I wrote, it seems to me on the basis of the little I know, that the scholarship program is a good thing for the girls concerned and I can’t see that Morrish or Rinehart have done anything wrong. SISHA’S suggestion that the girls’ allowance be cut from $250 a month to $100 a month strikes me as very sensible thinking on the part of Morrish."
Let me repeat it. On the basis of what I have been able to find Steve's behaviour in all this is beyond reproach. He could so easily respond with, "You are wrong, James. Some of the girls re in fact orphans but the journalist has got bit confused. It is a great program and I am proud to have been involved."
Or whatever the truth might be.
Yes, Steve was treated very badly by Khmer440 and has been given a hard time by sections of the media but he is inviting being given yet more hard times by remaining silent on the 'orphan question'.
You just dont get it do you James? My question was, why would Steve bother to respond to your questions, effectively assisting you in your quest, when you yourself have made him the centre of one of your blogs where you allowed your posters to write unkind things about him. I have just gone back through your blog and see that you had his picture on one of the blogs and some of your posters wrote falsities about him - and you didnt say anything to the contrary.
DeleteSo can I ask again - why should he answer your questions? Why should he give you the information you are looking for?
Ricketson - why is Morrish inviting more hard time by remaining silent. He didn't write the story claiming the girls were orphans. he doesn't work for CCF and from what i can see he isn't involved in the program anymore. Please explain?
DeleteAnonymous 2.33
DeleteSteve was only ever of interest to me in relation to David Fletcher - until this 'orphan' business came up. When I discovered that he was involved in the inception of the program the logical thing was to ask him if the girls were/are orphans. steve has declined to comment. So be it.
To repeat what I have already written, twice now, Steve's role in the re branding of the girls as 'orphans' seems, on the basis of what can be found online, to be zero. This leaves Neeson or the journalist as being responsible.
Anonymous 2.25
DeleteI will say it the the fourth time:
it seems to me on the basis of the little I know, that the scholarship program is a good thing for the girls concerned and I can’t see that Morrish or Rinehart have done anything wrong. SISHA’S suggestion that the girls’ allowance be cut from $250 a month to $100 a month strikes me as very sensible thinking on the part of Morrish."
Let me repeat it. On the basis of what I have been able to find Steve's behaviour in all this is beyond reproach. He could so easily respond with, "You are wrong, James. Some of the girls re in fact orphans but the journalist has got bit confused. It is a great program and I am proud to have been involved."
Hopefully, I will not be asked to repeat this again!
The trolls are oddly silent! Is this the lull before the storm or do they realise that the Emperor has no clothes and would rather not make fools of themselves any more than they have already?
ReplyDelete