Somaly Mam has resigned from her self-named foundation following the recent Newsweek expose article concerning her fabrications and dishonesty - I certainly agree that she has made the right decision to step down, which demonstrates that there are consequences to her actions.
However, I see this as only half of a much bigger story.
Since the early 2000's, when the issues of human trafficking hit the media spotlight, journalists, governments, celebrities and donors have been looking for ‘heroes’ to endorse the cause and increase their credibility, status and in general, to justify their own actions and agendas.
What ensued for the next decade was the manifestation of these new 'rules' to the anti-trafficking movement. Competition for funding and fame was characterised by anti-trafficking organisations and individuals compromising the dignity of clients and consistently pursuing a sensationalised approach to the issue. By and large, it was those organisations who were able to secure the most funding for their programs and gain the most accolade both personally and organisationally. In contrast, those who did not exploit the faces and identities of clients to elevate their own image as ‘saviours’ are ironically the ones, to this day, who struggle to keep their professional programs operational.
How easy is it to 'celebritise' someone when there are various agendas in the mix - not just Somaly's. And how easy to bring her down and see this as an isolated incident of lies and deception rather than a sign of a more systemic issue within the anti-human trafficking movement.
What a skewed playing field it has become.
As a coalition of 58 organisations working on this issue in Cambodia for more than 9 years, we have had numerous conversations about the tension this has caused. Many NGO workers on the ground did not want to compromise the dignity and fuel the sensationalised approach to the issue.
However, all of them felt pressured to do so and many, compelled by their overseas offices, did so in order to raise funds. At that time, I predicted that if we were to take a more dignified and educated approach that sought to engage donors and others, we would find it much harder to secure funds and fame.
Unfortunately, I was correct, and that has been exactly what has happened.
So who else should be responsible?
In a similar parallel, I have witnessed incidents of small local development NGO entrepreneurs here in Cambodia who quickly rocket to fame when it suits their 'promoters' - whether they be donors, government or others. Within a short timeframe, huge amounts of funds and attention are poured out on them, often with no thought to the impact of doing so. These local development entrepreneurs are flattered by the attention and jump through the hoops of those promoting them. However, it is quite a different story when that same heroic entrepreneur begins to syphon off funds, treat their staff badly, stop listening to voices of reason around them and eventually become dictatorial and unaccountable. Of course, responsibility sits at the feet of such people, but it is easy to forget who helped to elevate them to that position and predicament.
So before we simplify the case of Somaly, let us acknowledge that no-one exists in isolation - just as her actions impacted those closest to her, the influencers in her life, whose own agenda was endorsed by her rise and fall, should now take responsibility for their part.
Let's see who does.
However, I see this as only half of a much bigger story.
Since the early 2000's, when the issues of human trafficking hit the media spotlight, journalists, governments, celebrities and donors have been looking for ‘heroes’ to endorse the cause and increase their credibility, status and in general, to justify their own actions and agendas.
What ensued for the next decade was the manifestation of these new 'rules' to the anti-trafficking movement. Competition for funding and fame was characterised by anti-trafficking organisations and individuals compromising the dignity of clients and consistently pursuing a sensationalised approach to the issue. By and large, it was those organisations who were able to secure the most funding for their programs and gain the most accolade both personally and organisationally. In contrast, those who did not exploit the faces and identities of clients to elevate their own image as ‘saviours’ are ironically the ones, to this day, who struggle to keep their professional programs operational.
How easy is it to 'celebritise' someone when there are various agendas in the mix - not just Somaly's. And how easy to bring her down and see this as an isolated incident of lies and deception rather than a sign of a more systemic issue within the anti-human trafficking movement.What a skewed playing field it has become.
As a coalition of 58 organisations working on this issue in Cambodia for more than 9 years, we have had numerous conversations about the tension this has caused. Many NGO workers on the ground did not want to compromise the dignity and fuel the sensationalised approach to the issue.
However, all of them felt pressured to do so and many, compelled by their overseas offices, did so in order to raise funds. At that time, I predicted that if we were to take a more dignified and educated approach that sought to engage donors and others, we would find it much harder to secure funds and fame.
Unfortunately, I was correct, and that has been exactly what has happened.
So who else should be responsible?
In a similar parallel, I have witnessed incidents of small local development NGO entrepreneurs here in Cambodia who quickly rocket to fame when it suits their 'promoters' - whether they be donors, government or others. Within a short timeframe, huge amounts of funds and attention are poured out on them, often with no thought to the impact of doing so. These local development entrepreneurs are flattered by the attention and jump through the hoops of those promoting them. However, it is quite a different story when that same heroic entrepreneur begins to syphon off funds, treat their staff badly, stop listening to voices of reason around them and eventually become dictatorial and unaccountable. Of course, responsibility sits at the feet of such people, but it is easy to forget who helped to elevate them to that position and predicament.
So before we simplify the case of Somaly, let us acknowledge that no-one exists in isolation - just as her actions impacted those closest to her, the influencers in her life, whose own agenda was endorsed by her rise and fall, should now take responsibility for their part.
Let's see who does.
