Shell a good employer???

EXTRACTS FROM AN EMAIL SENT TO JOHN CHADWICK, COUNTRY CHAIRMAN, SHELL MALAYSIA 13 February 2006

Dear Mr Chadwick

I will now turn to the extraordinary case of another former long-serving employee of Shell in Malaysia ? Dr John Huong, an employee of 29 years standing.

As you are also well aware EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies ganged together in June 2004 to sue Dr Huong for libel in respect of articles published under his name on my website ? ShellNews.net (AKA RoyalDutchShellPlc.com). Shell obtained a High Court Injunction and a Restraining Order against him and subsequently threatened him with imprisonment.

Shell has been aware throughout the last 18 months that in fact my son and I had far greater responsibility for the drafting and publishing of the prohibited articles than Dr Huong. Most of the commentary cited in your High Court documents was originated by my son or me, not by Dr Huong. Yet you persist in suing him alone.

I have subsequently posted the offending articles and extracts thereof on a host of other websites internationally, including for example the ?TellShell? section on Shell?s OWN website ? shell.com and even on the BruDirect website located in The Kingdom of Brunei, a neighbouring Country of Malaysia. Dr Huong had no knowledge or involvement in any of these postings/publications.

So when will you be suing me? How can you explain Shell?s written statement in May 2005 recognising my right to use the Internet to criticise Shell, while coming down as you have on a former employee for telling the truth? Why have you taken action against a Malaysian national but not against a white European?

Here are brief extracts from each of the offending articles: -

FIRST ARTICLE: "In my experience Shell directors? and Shell managers, ?believe that truth is a precious commodity to be used as a last resort. It has to be squeezed out of them. They prefer to deceive, make empty pledges (Shell's code of ethics), intimidate,? ostracize, ?hide information from their own shareholders?, employees, the government who gave them the license to operate and, and finally ?retreating behind their army of lawyers? for shelter ?whenever there is a prospect that management misdeeds will be exposed."

SECOND ARTICLE: ?I have been unable to obtain any redress from this hypocritical Shell management which says one thing yet does another; a bunch of lying and deceitful bunglers, as has been revealed to the whole world by the oil reserves catastrophe which has pulverized Shell?s reputation.?

THIRD ARTICLE: DEFAMATION, SLANDER AND LIBEL: Mr. Lompoh and Mr. Kandiahpillai, no matter how much you like to talk about defamation, be it slander or libel about Shell management (including the Malaysian henchmen) there's no way for you to stop the continuous avalanche of bad news. You were the first to sour a wonderful and cordial communal relationship built up around Miri since 1910 and for the last years the inheritance built by our fore-fathers were destroyed and have come to a grinding halt; you just have to listen to the coffee shop talk. I now feel ashamed being identify with Shell.

END OF EXTRACTS

Shell?s draconian litigation has focused far more attention and public exposure on the grievances of a disgruntled employee than if it had simply allowed him to freely express his opinions on the Internet, which is a fundamental right in almost all free Countries. How can Shell?s actions be reconciled with your claimed support for the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience?

Has Shell no idea of how bad it looks that EIGHT companies have ganged up on one unemployed Malaysian and have insisted that the libel case is heard in Kuala Lumpur High Court, some 1300 kilometres from where he lives? He cannot get a job in his profession while the case hangs over his head and consequently cannot afford to keep travelling and staying in KP to attend hearings.

Of course you will soon leave all of the Shell employee litigation (I have only mentioned two cases ? they are others) to take up a highly paid, fat cat appointment elsewhere, thereby leaving someone else to deal with the dreadful mess you have created.

Please feel free to respond. I will happily publish any response in full, unedited.

Yours sincerely
Alfred Donovan

PS. This communication will also be posted on Malaysian websites.

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL SERVES CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHELL WHISTLEBLOWER DR JOHN HUONG: IMPRISONMENT OR FINE

Your readers may be interested in the latest developments in respect of Royal Dutch Shell whistleblower Dr John Huong.

The following article was published on my website on Saturday 18 March 2006.

By Alfred Donovan

Lawyers acting for a group of EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies have served contempt proceedings against Shell whistleblower Dr John Huong. The objective of the new (Notice to Show Cause) proceedings is to have Dr Huong committed to prison or fined in respect of publications made by me on my websites ? Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com (AKA TellShell.net) and Royal Dutch Shell Group .com (AKA ShellNews.net).

The legal papers were served on Dr Huong on Wednesday 17 March as he left the Industrial High Court in Kuching, Malaysia, where he is suing Shell for wrongful dismissal.

For reasons which I will explain, Shell?s ambush was an underhand and cowardly action (probably also designed to intimidate him in regards to his own litigation against Shell).

Royal Dutch Shell has been aware since July 2004 that the case against Dr Huong is built on a platform of fundamentally flawed evidence contained in Shell's STATEMENT OF CLAIM and the associated AFFIDAVIT by Shell?s Kuala Lumpur based solicitors, T H Liew & Partners.

Firstly, Shell cited an internet website which never existed ? ?Whistleblower No.2?. Although this was brought to their attention within days after the proceedings were issued, Shell has continued to maintain this fiction ever since, thereby deceiving the courts. Nor has there ever been a corresponding domain name. I appreciate Shell has acquired a reputation for conjuring tricks (making oil reserves vanish) but Shell will not be able to prove the existence of a website under that name. It is a complete delusion.

Secondly, Shell repeatedly claimed that Dr Huong had made ?postings? on the cited website. This was a physical impossibility since the website on which the articles were published does not have the technical facility to allow any third party postings. Again Shell was immediately advised that the allegation was unfounded, but chose to ignore the truth.

Thirdly, the articles in question were in fact co-authored and published by me (with the help of my son John) on my website. If there is any defamation (which I deny) then my son and I are the people that Shell should be suing, not Dr Huong. We are responsible for the alleged defamatory commentary actually cited in Shell?s STATEMENT OF CLAIM and associated AFFIDAVIT.

At that point in the proceedings in June 2004 what may have been a series of blunders about the true facts turned into a fabrication because Shell lawyers have continued to maintain the false basis of claim. In other words what started out as mistakes (if we take a charitable view) became falsehoods which since July 2004 have been used to deceive the courts. Shell has now instituted contempt proceedings against Dr Huong despite knowing that the entire case is founded on flawed/false evidence.

Why has Shell persisted in maintaining this deceit despite knowing the truth? I can only speculate that the reason for the long deception is because Shell wanted to maintain the charade that the website on which the articles were published is not connected with my son and me. This strategy was presumably meant to keep us and our evidence and experiences with Shell out of the picture. Shell has been determined for over a decade that it will not be ?goaded? into bringing a libel action against us. Shell UK Media Relations even issued a press statement about this on March 17, 1995. Shell does seem to have gone to extreme lengths by using trumped up evidence against a surrogate Defendant rather than being prepared to face us directly in court in a Shell McLibel type action.

Bearing in miind the flawed evidence orignially presented to the court and the subsequent failure by Shell to correct the blunders, the Interim Injunction and Restraining Order against Dr Huong are invalid and worthless. It is only now that Shell is trying to slyly change its pleadings rather than doing so in an open straightforward fashion.

Another factor could be that Shell prefers to sue Dr Huong under the repressive human rights climate in Malaysia in which freedom of expression is suppressed, rather than sue in the UK or the USA.

As many observers may have concluded, Dr Huong - who is being terrorised by Shell, is unfortunately a pawn in a long drawn out war between other protagonists that commenced more than a decade before he first contacted us.

As already indicated, the legal papers were served on Dr Huong as he left the Industrial High Court in Kuching, where he was suing Shell for wrongful dismissal.

Mr Hee Len Hi, General Manager of Shell Technology Services at the time that Dr Huong was dismissed on false charges, gave evidence on Wednesday and Thursday and was subjected to a rigorous and productive cross-examination. Shell senior management has probably realised by now that Dr Huong was a victim of unfair treatment by local management. The wrongful dismissal case resumes in September.

Dr Huong has 10 days in which to respond to the ?Show Cause? Notice served by Shell alleging contempt of court in relation to the defamation action.

The contempt proceedings are apparently based on the publication on my websites of the following items: -

Dr Huong?s DEFENCE document
Dr Huong?s email to Jyoti Munsiff
Dr Huong?s draft Affidavit
Dr Huong?s email to Human Rights Watch

A further article will follow probably on Monday.

www.royaldutchshellplc.com