“You are a voyeur who has the luxury to romanticize a situation that you know nothing about.”
Scott’s ‘voyeur’ observation was in relation to documentary filming I had done over the previous few years with a family that worked and lived in the Phnom Penh rubbish dump.
 |
The family'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 Scott was not going to allow the facts, the truth, to deflect him from his expression of 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.”
Sokheng, whose name I have always spelt phonetically as Sokayn, was 7 years old when I began to film with her family.
After 16 years of experience in Cambodia at the time (now 20 years) I was not "blissfully unaware" but otherwise on this point Scott and I are in complete agreement.
 |
Sokayn's family dwelling (background) rested on top of a 30 foot pile of decayed and decaying rubbish in the old Phnom Penh rubbish dump.
|
It is Scott’s next sentence that is problematic, to say the least!
“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.”
Scott was lying, as he has a tendency to do. At the time he wrote these words in an email to me, 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.
Ka and Chuan were living in a squalid windowless box close to the new Phnom Penh dump that does qualify for the word ‘home’. Between them they were earning $1,000 a year scavenging in the dump.
 |
| Ka and her husband Chuan at work. |
In its 2013 tax return the Cambodian Children's Fund informed the IRS in its tax return that it cost (and CCF was presumably spending) $2,000 a year to educate Sokayn and a further $2,000 a year to provide her with dormitory accommodation in a CCF residential facility.
So, whilst CCF, according to its own figures, was 'spending' $4,000 a year to take care of Sokayn, her mum and dad were earning $1,000 a year.
 |
| Sokayn at work in the dump |
It gets worse.
Sokayn had an older sister, Sokourn, who was also residing in a CCF institution. Another $4,000.
According to CCF it was spending $8,000 a year to take care of Sokayn and Sokourn. Unless CCF was lying to the IRS, I think it fair to presume that CCF was raising, through sponsors and donors, $8,000 a year to take care of Sokayn and Sokourn.
 |
Sokourn (older sister) and Sokayn at home - 10 square feet of open space with a roof made of plastic sheeting
|
When Chuan and Ka asked me to help get their daughters back, Scott Neeson insisted that they had signed a contract handing control of the girls to CCF. Chuan and Ka maintained that they had never signed a contract with CCF. When asked, Scott refused to provide a copy of the contract. He subsequently informed me that CCF had entered into a contract with MOSAVY. Maybe he had but what right did MOSAVY have to be entering into a contract with CCF regarding the custody of Sokayn and Sokourn?
The answer is: "No legal right". However, as I discovered in another case (Citipointe Church's illegal removal of two other daughters of a poor family), MOSAVY's decision as to who can and cannot retain custody of children removed from their families is not determined in accordance with Cambodian law. If you are a rich and powerful NGO, with an Executive Director well connected politically, you can retain custody of whatever children you choose to, regardless of the parent's wishes, and be held accountable by no-one - including human rights organisations such as LICADHO or the English language media.
Scott Neeson eventually gave Ka a job at the Cambodian Children's Fund. This enabled her and her husband, Chuan, to stop working in the dump. Ka's job was, however, contingent on her signing a non-disclosure contract forbidding her from speaking with me or anyone else in the media about the illegal detention of her daughters by CCF.
When Sokayn turned 14 she was give a job teaching at the Cambodian Children's Fund.
The family is now totally dependent on CCF.
My filmic record is the only evidence that is likely to see the light of day regarding CCF's illegal detention of Sokayn and Sokourn.
The answer is: "No legal right". However, as I discovered in another case (Citipointe Church's illegal removal of two other daughters of a poor family), MOSAVY's decision as to who can and cannot retain custody of children removed from their families is not determined in accordance with Cambodian law. If you are a rich and powerful NGO, with an Executive Director well connected politically, you can retain custody of whatever children you choose to, regardless of the parent's wishes, and be held accountable by no-one - including human rights organisations such as LICADHO or the English language media.
Scott Neeson eventually gave Ka a job at the Cambodian Children's Fund. This enabled her and her husband, Chuan, to stop working in the dump. Ka's job was, however, contingent on her signing a non-disclosure contract forbidding her from speaking with me or anyone else in the media about the illegal detention of her daughters by CCF.
When Sokayn turned 14 she was give a job teaching at the Cambodian Children's Fund.
The family is now totally dependent on CCF.
My filmic record is the only evidence that is likely to see the light of day regarding CCF's illegal detention of Sokayn and Sokourn.
 |
| The family's work environment. Smoke from burning rubbish, including rubber, fills the air all day. Respiratory illnesses are common amongst the 700 or so men, women and children who work in the dump in August 2015 |
 |
Sokayn collects plastic bags in the dump for recycling
|
 |
| Sokourn returning home from CCF school. Shoes were, at the time, a luxury that her family could not afford and were not supplied by CCF. |
 |
Ka, 8 months pregnant at the time the photo was taken, worked 10 hour days in the dump, 6 days a week, earning around $40 a month
|
 |
The plastic bags that Sokayn collects are usually filled with putrid smelling organic rubbish
|
 |
 |
Sokayn and her mum, Ka, on the way home after a day's work that has earned the family around $3
|
 |
The family diet at the time of my filming was basically rice. Even after Sokayn and Sokourn went to stay with CCF, the rest of the family's diet remained rice.
|
 |
Despite extreme poverty, this was a close, loving and happy family at the time of my filming. In Scott Neeson's view, an observation of the kind renders me guilty of having a romantic view of poverty. The reality is that being poor is not a bar to being happy - anymore than being rich is a guarantee of happiness.
|
 |
The family kitchen
|
 |
Sokayn, always smiling, challenges the widely held view that poor people must, by definition, be 'miserable'. This is not an argument in favour of keeping the poor poor, despite Scott Neeson's conviction that it is!
|
In August 2015 there are still 100 children working in the rubbish dump.
i am amazed that anyone can do what scott has done; taking advantage of the poor for his personal gain..........telling the world that he is doing what he is not............then when someone comes along and actually helps the poor like David Fletcher did, scott has him put in prison so he will not expose the dishonest people around scott.........I know these people do not believe in God; if scott did, he would not be able to sleep at night.
ReplyDeleteNeeson didn't want people seeing how David Fletcher was accomplishing so much with much smaller donated funds because 100 percent of funds received by Mr. Fletcher went directly to the poor children and their families at the dump. People might begin noticing how little Neeson was accomplishing with the enormous amount of donations he received. He then began his campaign to get rid of Mr. Fletcher.
DeleteScott Neeson and his lackeys must hate you for publishing these
ReplyDeletepictures. The CCF Aid Dream turns out to be a nightmare after all.
so where is the press; they know the truth; why are they not on top of this and reporting constantly? Why is David Fletcher an innocent man still in prison even after evidence of his innocence has been presented to the courts and press? how does scott sleep at night?
ReplyDeleteIf you checked the CCF money trail, I believe you would know why the media and courts have not been involved in seeking justice for Mr. Fletcher.
DeleteWhilst comments are appearing in my INBOX they are not appearing on this blog. I am not sure what the problem is.
ReplyDeleteIt has been suggested to me that sometimes this is a server problem and that if you change servers the problem disappears.
ReplyDeleteHere is one of the comments that has appeared in my INBOX but not on the blog:
"First there was Team Neeson singing the praises of Saint Scott Neeson, a scam artist of the first order. Now we have Team Ricketson singing the praises of kiddy fiddler David Fletcher - another lowlife kiddie fiddler rotting in jail. Scamodia, Kingdom of Wonder."
Firstly, Team Neeson has gone very quiet. Whether this is the quiet before the storm or because TN realises that it has lost the public relations battle I do not know. Time will tell.
If you look closely at any part of the Cambodian Children's Fund, questions arise which beg for answers. The most recent, of course, is the World Housing scam. This is such an obvious scam that Blind Freddie can see it. And yet the Cambodian media will not touch it with a barge pole,. Here we have a major NGO receiving free housing under false pretences (more than $500,000 worth) and the media pretends it is not happening. The same applies to the $4,000 per child per year that CCF quotes as the cost of caring for one kid in residential care. It may well be that CCF is pulling in $4,000 per year per child through donors and sponsors but virtually none of this money os going to help the impoverished families whose children is now 'caring' for. Another scam that Blind Freddy could see and which requires only a calculator, some proficiency with google search and a phone call to CCF to expose as a scam.
And now, just this past few days, I meet a young girl (and interview her) who works half the day in the rubbish dump to help support her family and the other half of the day attends a CCF school. If CCF's URS tax return figures are correct, this girl is earning CCF $2,000 a year. Not $4,000 as she is not in residential care. No, she lives at home with the family she helps support with her $5 a week wage earnt in the dump.
The Khmer Times, the Phnom Penh Post and the Cambodia Daily are all aware f this young girl but has a journalist from any one of them made contact with me and asked if they could meet with her. No, not one. Fir reasons that remain a mystery to me, all three newspapers have decided that Scott Neeson is not to be held accountable by them for anything he does. He can do what he likes with impunity, secure in the knowledge that the English language media will turn a blind eye; bury its head in the sand.
Mind you, the same applied with Somaly Mam. Fore years her own lies were known to everyone in the media in Cambodia (and within the NGO community) but were not commented on. Then it was decided that she should be brought down and Somaly Mam was exposed as a liar. But that is all she was exposed for - lying. As far as I am aware she was not accused of any scams on the scale that Neeson is clearly involved in. No, it was just her lying about her past that brought her down.
Why was Somaly Mam exposed and Scott Neeson not? I do not pretend to know the answer but can't help but wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that she was a brown woman whereas Scott Neeson is a white man?
As for david Fletcher, there have been new developments. These will be the subject of a new blog some time in the not too distant future.
Team ricketson - can one of you morons please tell me, if your blogs and made up bullshit is so damning to Neeson and CCF, why is CCF's funding amounts getting bigger each year. I will answer for you - because real people know who is more credible. Rickets or Neeson - an easy answer!
ReplyDeleteTeam Neeson
DeleteDo you really believe that a bank account that keeps growing is evidence of good work being done? Mafia bank accounts continue to grow. So do the accounts of those who start up pyramid funding schemes. So too did Bernie Madoff's. Indeed, part of the attraction of being a scamster (perhaps the main reason) is to see your bank account grow.
So, the fact that Neeson and CCF continue to pull in huge amounts of money tells us nothing about how well CCF does the job it says it is doing. it tells us nothing at all about Scott Neeson's integrity. The World Housing scam has boosted CCF's coffers by around $500,000 but is Neeson to be congratulated for ripping off World Housing? For deceiving developers in Vancouver,Canada,into believing that they are giving houses to poor Cambodians when they are in fact giving houses to Neeson?
If you think such unethical behaviour is some sort of benchmark of success, you have a very warped world view.
As for who is more credible, the fat lady has not sung yet. A time will come when Neeson's house of cards will be exposed for what it is. I hope that this blog will provide the person whop does the exposing with a series of questions to ask. I hope that when this person comes along s/he will not be put off by Neeson's refusal to answer questions but will keep digging, digging, digging until; s/he has a complete picture of all of Neeson's scams. And I hope that s/he is working for a publication that cannot, will not, be intimidated by Neeson into not publishing what s/he
discovers.
@ Anonymous 8.04
DeleteCongratulations are due to Scott Neeson for his skill at marketing. He can convince so many people to give him so much money despite all the evidence that he is involved in a whole lot of scams. Theres a sucker born every minute.
Neeson could sell ice to Eskimos. I dont understand how so many 'intelligent' people could be taken in by his scams.
DeletePerhaps you want to get in touch with this US colleague of yours. He's a
ReplyDeletefilm maker like you and seems to have similar experience in Cambodia
when it comes to NGO. Perhaps both of you can find a way to open up the
western media circus and get the truth out.
The Trap of Saving Cambodia by US Filmmaker Tim Sorel
Back than in 2012 Sorel was talking about 1-2000 NGO now the Cambodian
Gov. is talking about more than 5000 !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u9wCSJpCXM
Tom, Good video. Thanks for sharing. I hope everyone watches it along with this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w
DeleteThis comment today on the CCF FB page: "After fifteen years of waiting..... finally a home.
ReplyDeleteMeet one of our CCF families who spent 15 years homeless, and now have a home, access to CCF community services and education for their children."
Now Neeson has been receiving $2800 for each house donated by World Housing. He has been putting $1800 into cash and investments for CCF. He could have built 3X as many homes for the impoverished and actually GIVEN them to the people. He wants to proclaim himself as a Saint, instead he deserves a kick in the balls!!!!
He deserves more than one kick in the balls!! He decided to leave the family homeless for 15 years and keep donated money in his bank!! What a POS!!!
DeleteOne "Quality" my fellow Khmer have is that most of them cannot lie !
ReplyDeleteI mean even if they try to lie they don't do it very well and most times
you know it's more of an escape than an outright lie. Now many may
disagree with me because of their own experience (perhaps mostly with
women from the Bar Industry ?) but when it comes to children my
experience is that they simply don't know how to lie.
This is why James Ricketson's Work of conducting Video Taped Interviews
with Kids living on the Dump is so important. You can actually see that
they say the truth !
Keep going Ricketson and don't let yourself be intimidated by some
Poverty Pimps who fear for their source of income once the House of
Lies collapses on them.
Mr Ricketson
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the latest World Housing and Cambodian Children's Fund round of boasting about the homes they are 'gifting' to poor people?
https://www.facebook.com/WorldHousing
https://www.facebook.com/worldhousingcambodia
The hypocrisy of Scott Neeson and World Housing.is astounding.
Whatr have tyou got to say about Scott Neesons new school Mr James fucking Ricketson? You lowlife cunt.How many chools have you built, you fucking looser. Fuck off and die under a fucking rock
ReplyDeleteWhat do you have to say about Neeson taking over 700 children from their families Anonymous 1:56?
DeleteRecent survey data from Lumos showed the following outcomes for children who grew up in institutions:
1 in 3 became homeless
1 in 5 had a criminal record
1 in 10 committed suicide
1 in 7 became involved in prostitution
You choose to ignore it? IT IS OUTRAGEOUS!! Neeson should be in prison!!
Dear Team Neeson (aka 1.56 pm)
DeleteGood to have you back, providing some comic relief. Best not to drink and comment at the same time, I'd suggest.
Scott just starting building the best school in the country (according the minister for education), to give poor kids a science education. Brings in millions to Cambodia to provide to education for poor kids. WHAT A MONSTER.
ReplyDeleteNo comments on the new school from ricketson or his friends/posse of dirty old men. It's been celebrated in every newspaper and tv station in cambodia. Surely you've seen it. Like all of CCF education facilities, this allows kids to live at home while receiving an education that will change their life. DOESN'T FIT YOUR BULLSHIT NARRATIVE THOUGH DOES IT?
Give it time - Ricketson will make up some story that creates a massive conspiracy theory where Neeson is now making millions of $ from providing high quality education to poor children or that Neeson framed Fletcher just so he could steal Fletchers idea - who of course was going to build this same school and provide education to children - in between shagging 15 year olds who consented to his predatory behaviour. Fact is Ricketson is a dog and like all dogs carries fleas - people dont like flee carrying dogs and eventually put them down or look them up somewhere where they can't spread fleas anymore. What is promising is that the Cambodian Government is clamping down on bloggers - with any luck Neeson has a few quiet words to some of his friends and the Government doesn't let Ricketson back in the country again or better still arrest him
DeleteSo you are saying he is ONLY harming the 700 that do NOT go home everyday? He is not harming ALL 2000?
DeleteDear Scott, or is it Alan? (Anonymous 9.22)
DeleteYour writing styles are similar so its difficult for me to guess which one of you it is.
I know about this new school other than what the Scott Neeson/CCF publicity machine has churned out to date so can't comment on it until I am better informed. I have learned, however, that one needs to take anything you say, Scott, with a huge grain of salt.
I am more concerned, just now, with your recent announcement of 16 new homes 'gifted' to poor families. As you know, as World Housing knows, these houses have not been gifted to poor families at all. they have been gifted to you. To CCF.
I certainly have to give you 10 out of 10 for having the nerve to keep using the words 'gifted' and 'gifting' in the way you do when it is you and CCF who are the beneficiaries of these 'gifted' homes.
As for ';bullshit narratives' Scott, this World Housing scam takes the cake. And you are getting away with it because no-one is going to hold you accountable for the dishonesty that lies at the heart of this World Housing initiative.
To the anonymous poster 10.38pm - you are a fucking idiot - how about naming these so called 700 children that are being harmed. Do you have any evidence that they are being harmed - have nay of them told you this and of course, its is documented correctly.
DeleteStop pulling your cock you moronic keyboard warrior!
This World Housing spiel you have makes zero sense. You think they go to all this effort to make $15 a month? That wouldn't even cover the rental of the land you idiot.
DeleteDear Anonymous 11.57
DeleteLet me make this really simple for you:
(1) Developers in Vancouver, Canada, believe that they are 'gifting' homes to poor families in Cambodia via World Housing.
(2) World Housing and CCF make it clear in their publicity materials that the homes are being 'gifted' to poor families.
(3) In fact, World Housing is 'gifting' these homes to CCF.
(4) CCF gets homes for free that both it and World Housing tell the world are being 'gifted' to poor families. There is a word for this: 'LYING.
(5) Scott Neeson charges World Housing $2,800 per home, despite the fact that they cost $1,000 to manufacture. So, for every free home Neeson gets he is also overcharging World Housing to the tune of $1,800. There is a word for this: SCAM
Given that you mention the 'rental of the land',perhaps you can tell us who owns the land on which the houses have been built? If the land is owned by CCF, why would the 'rental' question even arise?
Of course, if the land on which the houses are being erected is owned by someone other than CCF, the accumulated rental is not an insignificant sum.
Who owns the land?
And, let's just sway that a family who has been 'gifted' a home decides to take their home and move it somewhere else? Can they do so? I suspect not,though I stand to be corrected.
If the homes cannot be moved off the rented land my suspicion is that in accordance with Cambodian law the homes are owned by the owner of the land. If I am wrong about this, please correct me.
The ownership of the land on which the houses have been erected is an important question that demands an answer.
I doubt very much that you will provide one. Scott Neeson certainly won't provide one and, it seems, no-one in the media is prepared to even ask Neeson and CCF this question.
Dear Scott and/or Alan (Anonymous 9.45)
ReplyDeleteI am accustomed to thinly (and not so thinly) veiled threats from Team Neeson and this is just another one to ignore.
"With any luck Neeson has a few quiet words to some of his friends and the Government doesn't let Ricketson back in the country again or better still arrest him."
This comment says so much about you,Scott, though i wonder if you even realise it. Yes, you have friends in high places and, yes, I am sure you could, if you chose, carry out threats such as this one with impunity. Go for it. Shooting the messenger may well bring you temporary relief but in the long run others will come along and ask precisely the same questions I am asking.
1) Im not Scott you goose!, 2) once again you are smoking too much marijuana and you believe that others will carry on with your worthless attacks on good people.
DeleteContrary to your opinion Ricketson - the only relief that is occurring right now is that more an more people are releasing that you are a jilted, success hating individual who has nothing else in this world but a blog site and a belief that you have millions of followers - sorry to rain on your parade fuckwit but you are a used car salesman
Dear Scott/Alan (aka Anonymous 11.45)
DeleteWhat you call 'worthless attacks' others might think of as valid questions to ask of a very wealthy NGO that plays fast and loose with the truth.
Let me ask you two very straightforward questions. They require only a 'yes' or a 'no' answer.
(1) Is World Housing 'gifting' homes to the Cambodian Children's Fund?
Yes or no?
(2) Is the Cambodian Children's Fund 'gifting' these homes to poor Cambodian families?
Yes or no?
(3) Is the Cambodian Children's Fund renting these 'gifted' homes to poor cambodian families?
Yes or no?
yours
James (used car salesman) Ricketson
To James Ricketson,
ReplyDeleteIf a charity gives homes to 300 desperate families, it is because they are trying to help. If instead you see this as the world’s most bizarre scam to get $10 a month, (surely a fraction of what CCF is spending on these families) then you need to get your head checked.
Who are the victims of this scam? The 300+ families that now have homes with electricity, water and security, as well as education for their children and healthcare for the family?
You’ve blinded yourself with bitterness and hate old man.
Dear Team Neeson
DeleteI am nor sure how I can make this easier for you to understand. I'll try.
If I say i am going to give you a home ('gifted', 'gifting') and I do not give you a home but rent you one instead, would you not feel inclined to say, "Hang on, you have not given me a home; you have rented me a home."
World Housing and the Cambodian Children's Fund are lying when they say they are giving homes to poor people.
Both could have approached this differently and said, "We will be providing housing for poor families at low rentals but the houses will be owned by CCF."
CCF does not say this because the notion that CCF is GIVING homes to poor people provides both CCF and World Housing with much bette4r publicity.
As for the $15 a month being a fraction of what CCF spends on the families, this is simply not true. CCF claims, in its 2013 IRS Income Tax return to be spending $4,000 per year to house and educate (and feed) one child. This, in a country in which the per capita income is less tan half this amount.
And, as I have been told in many an interview now, the best that the family with a child in CCF residential care can hope for by way of support is $250 a year of rice support. So, that's $3,850 to CCF and $250 to the familiy CCF is 'helping'.
I am not making these figures up. There are CCF figures.
As always, and as with all members of Team Neeson, you do not answer questions but think, by shooting the messenger, bey insulting the person asking questions, that readers of this blog will not notice the accumulation of unanswered questions. You can call me any and every name under the sun but the questions remain. And they remain unanswered. And they remain unanswered for a reason that will be blindingly obvious to any readers with a modicum of intelligence.
Anonymous 12.56 - Ricketson hasn't become blinded - he has always been a hater and a vindictive individual, hellbent on destroying the reputation of Neeson and a few other people that he has written incorrect comments about. Rickets hates the world and blames his pitiful life on everyone but himself. He really is a very sad individual - I pity him!
DeleteRicketson - I'm new to this blog and have spent a bit of time reading your questions and comments. Im not taking sides but I would like to know from you - What experience do you have with providing assistance, education and support to poor children and families which gives justification to you asking your questions? Is your analysis of Neeson and CCF operations based on expertise or past experience or are you just asking questions randomly?
ReplyDeleteThe variations in your many questions of Neeson since you started your blog suggests that you believe his organisation is failing on at least 20 different fronts. Im not sure thats fair in its assessment and I am curious to know from what basis you make your assessments.
Dear Anonymous 11.27
DeleteMy questions for you:
Of what relevance does my experience in providing assistance, eduction and support for poor children have to my role as a journalist, documentary filmmaker and blogger?
Are you suggesting that journalists and documentary filmmakers can only choose topics of concern to them if they have had first hand experience of their topic of choice?
As it happens, I have spent most of my adult life "providing assistance, education and support to poor children and families". 20 of those years have been spent helping a variety of families in Cambodia but my doing so is not relevant to the questions I have asked of Scott Neeson, of CCF and, most recently, of World Housing.
The problem with Scott Neeson and CCF is that they do not feel the need to be accountable to their sponsors or donors and nor are they held accountable by either the media or human rights organisations.
Aalas, other commitments prevent me from writing more just now.
Anon 11.27 - I will answer for you - Rickets is a cunt pure and simple. He has set out from day one to throw as much mud as he can at Neeson, CCF and a few other good people. Have a look at how many different people he has made the subject of his vile hatred. He lost credibility years ago and any good person with common sense who reads his blog quickly sees how driven he is by hate.
ReplyDeleteDear Team Neeson (aka Anonymous 11.37)
ReplyDeleteYou can't help yourself, can you!
Given that Scott Neeson, Alan Lemon and the CCF Board all refuse to answer any questions, perhaps you'd like to answer one of them. Just one. Take a pick. There are many of them.
As for my being a 'cunt' etc., I do wish you'd consult your thesaurus and come up with some more original forms of abuse.
Nonetheless, i have to thank you for the comic relief your comments bring to this otherwise usually 'serious' blog. Keep it up
Scott Neeson's CCF is using the same "Standard" that has shaped the foreign
ReplyDeletefunded NGO Scene in Cambodia for decades.
When it comes to children, Khmer children that is, many NGOs mirror the US Toy
Store ToysRus - like when it comes to toys we are the authority. Many in Cambodia's child protection industry claim that "ChildrenRus" leaving no room for individual sponsor or truly "good people" with the intention to HELP instead of claiming to be the saviour without these children would be doomed !
Sometime ago Sarah Harrington, a Volunteer working in an "Orphanage-NOT"
in Siem Reap had this to say:
"We cannot leave the children on the street where they are subject to exploitation etc."
No, her NGO would rather pluck them from whatever place and put them behind walls so they are safe from predators of all kinds. She missed to say that one of the main predators and threat to Khmer children is the NGO industry that claims to protect children in Cambodia while making a nice income and enjoying a luxury style of living in a tropical country.
In Cambodia nobody is asking for a degree in social sciences or any qualification to handle kids from an alien culture.
To even dare to ask questions about the legality of some foreign funded
NGO is seen as an attack.
"How dare you to question our good deeds ?"
This has always worked for the past decades and not only in Cambodia. Africa as a whole continent has fallen victim to these people, too.