Cambodia Daily 18.July 2005 (p.20)

Control of Orphanage Pits ?Mother“ Agaisnt NGO

 

BY KUCH NAREN

AND KEREN JOHNSON

THE CAMBODIA DAILY

 

Fifty-two children have been caught in a dispute between a Siem Reap orphanage and Sunrise Childen’s Village, an Australianbased NGO to which the government gave control of the orphanage last year.

Amid a web of allegations from both sides, two orphanage residents alleged last week that Sunrise, among other things, is trying to oust Thou Rem, a caretaker who some call ?Mother“, who has taken control of the orphanage.

Accompanied by Satoshi Ito, who identified himself as a Japanese humanitarian, 17-year-old Ki Kimly and 18-year-old Ki Chantha said in interviews last week that Sunrise came to Siem Reap in November, with approval of the Ministry of Social Affairs, to take control of their public orphanage.

The girls said Sunrise tried to fire Thou Rem, who has worked at the orphanage since 1988, and alleged the NGO has been withholding food, water and utilities because the orphans have refused to move to Sunrise’s newly constructed facility.

In a statement received last wek, orphanage representatives echoed the claim, stating orphans have not received water, firewood or rice from Sunrise since January.

The statement went on to say that Sunrise’s ?siege tactics“ would eventually force children to leave ?because there is nothing more to eat at {the orphanage}.

Thou Rem said last week that she worked at Sunrise for a short time but was wrongfully accused of theft and that the NGO tried to fire her.

When that was unsuccessful, she said that the Ministry of Social Affair asked her to retire. Fearing job loss and separation from ?{her} children“, ?she took control of the orphanage.

Geraldine Cox, president of Sunrise Children’s Village, which is part of Australia Cambodia Foundation, said last week the group’s claims are ?completely ridiculous“ adding that Sunrise has not limitted the orphange’s access to electricity, water or food.

Sunrise came to Siem Reap in 2004 with a memorandum of understanding from the ministry to manage the orohanage, Cox said. The group planned to integrate two existing orphanages into Sunrise Children’s Village, she said last week.

?Legally under the memorandum of understanding,{the orohanage is} ours.“ Cox said.

Sim Son, Siem Reap provincial governor, said Sunrise received permission from the ministry to control and monitor the orphanage ?because {they} need the orphanage to be developed as well,“ he said.

Cox said orphanage workers were offered positions at the new Sunrise’s facility, but Thou Rem refused because the new position did not allow her access to the group’s finances. Indstead, Thou Rem persisted in running the orphanage herself, Cox said.

?We offered {Thou Rem} a job. We told her that she could work with us, but {we} would not let her work with donations or money, and she refused, ? Cox said.

She said Thou Rem has padlocked the gate, blocking Sunrise staff from the orphanage and described the woman’s presence at the orphanage a ?bit of mistery“.

?Ms Thou Rem, was never the boss {of the orhanage}, she was a caretaker that took over, ? Cox said.

Thou Rem denied she had padlocked the gate.

 

 

 

Cambodia Daily 27. july 2005 (19)

Visit to Orphanage Could have Confirmed Reports of Neglect

I have read the article ?Control of Orphanage Pits ?Mother’ Against NGO“ (July ge 20) many times and all I get out off it is a ?he said/she said“review.

Did either of the reporters take the time to visit the orphanages? My guess is no since the last line of the article reads “Thou Rem denied she had padlocked the gate“.

If your reporters had visited they would have seen that the gate was padlocked, as I did during my semiannual visit this month.

It was the first time in three years that I was denied entry to the back part of the orphanage because Thou Rem wasn’t there.

Even though the older ?nannies“ knew who I was from previous visits, I was told I could not visit until her return.

I came back a few hours later and was allowed in, but the gate was padlocked then also, and I had to wait for someone to open it.

Throughout my four-day visit, the gate was always padlocked and was only opened to allow the older children in and out for school.

Regardless of all of the ?he said / she said“ accusations that were written in the article, I can tell you for a fact that the orphanage in the back looked no different last week than it did three years ago ? before Sunrise was ever in the picture.

The children are still hanging in nets and urinating on the floor that they eat off of.

Most of the younger children have no clothes on and 4-year-old girl had the same outfit on four days in a row ? and the smell to prove it.

The ?nannies“ and Thou Rem’s responsibility is to care for these children, yet until I complained, that little girl would have probably worn the same clothing for many more days.

All of this has nothing to do with Sunrise since this is how the orphanage has been run for years.

Sunrise is a different world from the back orphanage. All of the children have clothing, which they are taught to keep clean and neat. They have assigned chores ? a structure that was absent in the back part.

No fighting, biting or hitting allowed. They brush their teeth morning and evening and wash their hands before each meal. They eat at tables and clean their dishes. They are taught English, Khmer dance and music and the older children have computer lesons.

Even though it is an orphanage, these children are better off than some living with their parents in a village. They all look bright and happy and well-loved.

But don’t take my word for it ? or your reporter’s word ? go and visit both orphanages and then write an article of where you think the orphaned children of Cambodia should live.

 

Sharon Powell

Chicago, Illinois, USA

 

 

The second article shows very clearly how superficial people from advanced countries see the reality in Cambodia. Whenever they see younger children without clothes, whenever naked babies in hammock urinate on the floor, they conclude that these children are abused. They look at daily life in Cambodia from a biased perspective and apply only their own standard to Cambodia. And then they conclude simplistic that children living under this standard are neglected by their caretakers. This logic is completely identical with basic stance of Sunrise.

This logic can maybe convince those people who have never been in Cambodia. However those who have lived in Cambodia for a long time know that younger children under 3 or 4 everywhere in Cambodia “don’t have to ” put on clothes and 99 % of all Cambodian babies have never diaper.

The man, Mr. Sharon Powell, tells some wrong stories. By diaries of two orphan girls we can verify that nobody visited SRPO for four days in July or in other months (Because the children have seldom visitors this year, they wrote about every visitor). There were some tourists who visited SRPO on the 13^th July. The children didn’t let them come inside at first because they had talked with staff members of Sunrise friendly for a long time. Mr. Sharon Powell is maybe one of them. But this group visited SRPO only on that day and just once more on the next day to say “Good-bye”. The gate of SRPO was never padlocked. There is no girl in SRPO who is 4 years old. And children change their clothes three times a day after each taking shower.

So we must say Mr. Sharon Powell tells many fiction stories. Why? I guess he wrote this article not to report the truth, but to support Sunrise ( or, maybe this man doesn’t exist).

If someone visits SRPO for a few days and talks with children, he should have listened to voices of the children and noticed their hardship because of “siege tactics” of Sunrise. But Mr. Powell didn’t tell one word about this problem and just praise Sunrise “paradise” ? maybe because he never listened to the children and just “watched” them as if he watched animals in a zoo.. 

 

Comment by Satoshi Ito