Posts Tagged ‘Dr John Huong’

Above are screenshots from Shell Malaysia website taken 17 June 2011

Introduction by John Donovan

Many visitors to royaldutchshellplc.com are aware of past litigation involving several hundred thoroughly disgruntled employees of Shell in Malaysia who sued Shell on various grounds, including wrongful dismissal and allegations that Shell management made unlawful deductions from the employee retirement fund.

That was not the only recent litigation.

Eight Royal Dutch Shell Companies joined together to sue a former Shell Malaysia Production Geologist, Dr John Huong (right), to stop him blowing the whistle on management misdeeds, including fraudulently inflating claimed hydrocarbon reserves and putting employee lives at risk due to lax safety procedures. Shell buried Dr Huong in multiple injunctions and made repeated attempts to have him imprisoned before settling the entire litigation out of court.

A former  Shell Malaysia executive, Mr John Johns has also made very serious allegations against his former management colleagues and says he has the evidence to prove that was he alleges is true.

Unfortunately, obtaining justice in Malaysia is an uphill struggle because the judiciary is endemically corrupt and Shell has friends and infuence in very high places.

We now have alarming news from another Shell Malaysia source.

WARNING FROM OUR LATEST SHELL MALAYSIA SOURCE (WHO WISHES TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS)

Despite being the world’s number one Fortune 500 company, Shell has a long way to go to comply with its own Ethical Guidelines.

The previously well respected company has taken the stand that if there are no local labour laws to protect its employees, then, ‘anything goes’. Unfairly dismissing employees is a rampant practice in Malaysia. It is so common, that Shell Malaysia has appointed multiple legal firms to defend itself. In the capital of Kuala Lumpur alone, it has appointed at least three separate legal firms to deal with the piling cases.

Unfortunately, these are only cases that went to courts. For every such case, there were many more that never reached the courts. The losers are not Shell…it is the victimised employees. Unlike Western countries, the only legal remedy Malaysians have is to go through the legal process, which sometimes take more than 10 years. Many victims don’t bother with this and just accept their fate and try to move on.

Employees are often bullied into resigning or given poor performance evaluations by their incompetent supervisors. Usually, the management needs a scapegoat to put the blame on. The lax employment laws in Malaysia makes it an ideal place for Shell to literally do as it likes.

The following are just some of the cases that are pending in the Malaysian Labour courts. (Claimants names removed to protect privacy). For full details of each case and findings, please go to the court website http://www.mp.gov.my/ and type ‘Shell’ in respondent. This is publicly available.

I would strongly recommend potential Shell employees to consider carefully before signing the dotted line.

Case No. 8/4-234/97
50 employees vs Sarawak Shell Bhd

2 8/4-406/97
4 employees vs Sarawak Shell Bhd

3 8/4-653/97
5 employees vs Sarawak Shell Bhd

4 8/4-8/98 Miss G vs Sarawak Shell Bhd.

5 8/4-166/98
5 employees vs Sarawak Shell Berhad

6 8/4-334/98
2 employees vs Sarawak Shell Bhd.

7 7/4-732/11 Mr K vs Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn. Bhd.

8 14/4-1996/07 Mr M vs Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn. Bhd

9 3(15)(3)/4-1461/04 Mr J vs Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn. Bhd./Shell Malaysia Limited

10 22(19)/4-2884/04 Mr N Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn. Bhd.

11 8/4-653/98 C & 5 others vs Sarawak Shell Sdn. Bhd

30 20/4-307/08 Mr M vs Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn. Bhd

PHOTO OF SOME OF THE PAST EMPLOYEES OF SHELL MALAYSIA WHO HAVE SUED THE COMPANY (TEAM A)

MORE INFORMATION ABOUT DR HUONG.

By John Donovan

Twitter is currently flooded with people trying to identity parties who have obtained Super-injunctions in an attempt to hide embarrassing information from public scrutiny.

It is not widely known that Royal Dutch Shell has been a trailblazer in using draconian litigation to silence a conscience driven whistleblower who objected to Shell defrauding its shareholders and recklessly putting employees lives at risk.

In this case, it was a multinational oil giant trying to keep the lid on a potentially highly damaging story.

EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies collectively buried a former employee, Dr John Huong, in High Court injunctions and contempt proceedings seeking his imprisonment, all in an effort to hide Shell’s misdeeds.

Dr John Huong: an employee of Shell Malaysia for 29 years, a Production Geologist and Asset Integrity Engineer

Printed below are extracts from one such legal submission from the law firm acting for the EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies registered in various countries, including the UK, the Netherlands and Malaysia.

EXTRACTS

Notwithstanding the Existing Injunction, the Defendant continued publishing statements defamatory of the Plaintiffs. In the Plaintiffs’ view, some constituted contempt of court in the Previous Action. Contempt proceedings have since been initiated. For those statements that probably fell outside the scope of the Previous Action and the Existing Injunction, the Plaintiffs commenced the present proceedings.

The High Court may grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant, whether by himself or by his servants or agents or otherwise, from publishing or further publishing matter which is defamatory or of malicious falsehood. It is not necessary to show that there has already been an actionable publication or that damage has been sustained. In appropriate cases an injunction may be granted ex parted and before the issue of  a writ.

In other words, an injunction can be granted even before damage occurs. The present facts are therefore a fortiori.

The Defendant has sought to contend that the publications were by Donovan, not him. This is disingenuous and not the law. As a matter of law, publication is the dissemination of defamatory material to at least one other person:

Here, there was communication from the Defendant to Donovan. Donovan then republished the defamatory material. In law this is deemed to be publication by the Defendant as the publication by Donovan was the natural and probable consequence of the publication from Huong to Donovan.

The full text of this publication is exhibited as ‘TK-2′ of Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai’s affidavit of 5.4.06.

It is a letter to Jyoti Munsiff the newly appointed Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell plc.

We now merely highlight certain passages from that publication to show their defamatory nature:

As you know I am being sued by eight companies of the Royal Dutch Shell Group for alleged defamation. The relevant Shell companies have obtained a restraining order which prevents me for speaking the TRUTH in line with the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. My rights to freedom of expression have in fact been restrained for over 18 months. I had thought that Shell supported this UN Declaration, but it seems that this assumption must be incorrect. I would welcome your clarification on this point as I am sure that my analysis must be at fault?

Something really must be seriously amiss. The answers to my questions are important if, as I assume must be the case, you genuinely want to encourage whistleblowers to speak out if they become aware of misdeeds which are in contravention of the Shell Statement of General Business Principles (SGBP).

It is surely essential in this regard that an even-handed approach is adopted in such matters so that would be whistleblowers and parties with genuine grievances are not deterred by the prospect that they could be ostracized, victimized sacked and/or sued if they do come forward. In regards to this paragraph I am speaking of course in general terms, not about my case, as that would be inappropriate under the current ongoing litigation.

This letter also seeks confirmation from you for me to make significant inputs for improving ethics and compliance at Shell. I sincerely believe that for obvious reasons I have a unique perspective on the question of Shell employees engaging professionally in whistle blowing when faced with ethical moral and/or legal dilemmas.

I also believe that it is fair to make readers of this communication aware that apart from the High Court Restraining Order, I am also constrained in my comments by a threat of imprisonment.

I am sure that the eight Royal Dutch Shell companies who collectively decided to sue me believe that their action is an appropriate and proportionate response to the alleged defamatory comments by one former Malaysian employee of 29 years.

The Plaintiffs case is that these passages clearly identify and defame the Plaintiffs. The crux of the defamation is the allegation that the Defendant, a whistleblower has been gagged to prevent him from speaking the “TRUTH”. He has been restrained from revealing ‘misdeeds’ that are illegal, immoral and or unethical.  The allegation therefore is that the Plaintiffs have abused the legal process afforded by the High Court.

There can be no question that the publication defames the Plaintiffs. The allegations include the following:

However Dr Huong discovered in 1997 and the immediately following years that the SGBP are in fact empty promises – propaganda for use in the circumstances described above and in global advertising campaigns such as “Profits and Principles” or “the triple bottom-line”. The SGBP amounted to nothing more than a confidence trick to encourage the public and financial institutions into investing in Shell.

Dr Huong was, as far as I am aware, the first Shell employee to blow the whistle at Shell (in 1997) about the deliberate falsification of hydrocarbon reserves.

His objections to bending his principles by turning a blind eye to wrongdoing proved to be the turning point in Dr Huong’s previously highly successful career with Shell. He was humiliated, victimised, put under intolerable pressure which made him ill and was ultimately, sacked, thereby further aggravating stress brought about by Shell’s actions against him. Prior to the wrongful dismissal, the domestic inquiry heard that his medical record in the care of the company doctor could not even be found. The records had mysteriously disappeared, just like Shell hydrocarbon reserves.

The ‘affidavit’ contains related defamatory assertion of, for example, racism against the Plaintiffs:

Mr Alfred Donovan has pointed out in the same vein that Shell settled a retirement funds related class action law suit brought against it by its American employees, whilst it has for years, dragged out retirement fund related lawsuits brought by its Malaysian former employees.

It there is any substance to Mr Donovan’s speculation, then we would have to add ‘racist policies’ to the description listed above.

The Defendant has gone on a wild rampage with Alfred Donovan to consider any wrongdoing done by any Shell company around the world. He then extrapolates from the particular – individual instances of impropriety anywhere in the world – and reaches a general conclusion that the 8 Plaintiffs have been dishonest, engage in criminal conspiracy and criminal conduct generally.

In the rambling megalomaniacal affidavit Defendant elevates himself to a pedestal and concludes from the fact that he was dismissed and that this was because he had discovered the TRUTH’.

Yet, in all this, not one iota of specific fact is raised to justify any of the very serious allegations against the Plaintiffs. As we have seen, these include allegations of:

Deliberate falsification

Destroying documents to thwart legal proceedings

Racism

That is why he had to run to the Donovans for assistance. Even now, not one specific fact of wrongdoing has been supported.

‘Over·the-top’ abusive and snide statements like those made by the Defendant, aided and abetted by Alfred Donovan constitute clear evidence of an absence of honest belief.

EXTRACTS END

DESPITE ALL OF THE BLUSTER, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL SETTLED OUT OF COURT WITH DR HUONG TO STOP THE CASE BEING HEARD IN OPEN COURT. DR HUONG HAD PREPARED EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING HIS ASSERTIONS AND HAD MANY WITNESSES LINED UP. FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, SHELL DECIDED THAT AT ALL COSTS, THE CASE HAD TO BE KILLED BEFORE IT CAME TO TRIAL. HENCE THE OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT AFTER YEARS OF LITIGATION, JUST AS SHELL DID WITH THE NIGERIAN TRIAL IN THE USA.

The Defendant has gone on wild rampage with Alfred Donovan to consider any wrongdoing done by any Shell company around the world. He then extrapolates from the particular – individual instances of impropriety anywhere in the world – and reaches a general conclusion that the 8 Plaintiffs have been dishonest, engage in criminal conspiracy and criminal conduct generally.

Comment by Shell General Counsel Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai about reserves whistleblower, Dr John Huong, a production geologist

By John Donovan

Printed below is a submission to the High Court of Malaya.

It was made in October 2006 by Shell General Counsel Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai acting for EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies collectively suing a former employee, Dr John Huong, for alleged defamatory postings published by us on our website. We have put in italics the comments attributed to Dr Huong or to us.

The litigation, which included allegations of racism by Shell against its employees, was secretly settled by Shell before the case could be heard in open court. We do not yet have a date for the settlement, which is believed to have occurred in 2009 and also involved a High Court action brought by Dr Huong against Shell for wrongful dismissal.

THE COURT DOCUMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR
(CIVIL DIVISION)
CIVIL SUIT NO. S2 – 23 – 38 – 2006

BETWEEN

1. SARAWAK SHELL BHD (71978-W)

2. SHELL MALAYSIA TRADING SENDIRIAN BERHAD (6078-M)

3. SHELL REFINING COMPANY (FEDERATION OF MALAYA) BHD (3926-U)

4. SHELL TIMUR SDN BHD (113304-H)

5. SHELL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION MALAYSIA B.V. (993963-V)

6. SHELL OIL AND GAS (MALAYSIA) LLC (993830-X)

7. SHELL SABAH SELATAN SDN BHD (228504-T)

8. SABAH SHELL PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD (993229-W)                         … PLAINTIFFS

AND

HUONG YIU TUONG                                                                                        … DEFENDANT

PLAINTIFFS’ SKELETAL SUBMISSIONS (INTERIM INJUNCTION)

May it please you, My Lord,

BACKGROUND

History

1.    This is set out in the affidavit of Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai of 5.4.06 and we now merely highlight the salient portions.
See:     Paragraphs 5 to 10

2.    The Defendant was formerly an employee of the 10 Plaintiff. He was dismissed on 28.5.03 for unaccounted absence from work and insubordination.

3.    In retaliation, the Defendant commenced a tirade of defamatory publications that extended beyond his former employer, the 10 Plaintiff, to the Plaintiffs generally.

4.    The Plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the Defendant in Kuala Lumpur High Court Suit No. S2-23-41-2004 (the Previous Action) for defamation.

5.    On 24.6.04, the Plaintiffs obtained an Interim Injunction against the Defendant to restrain him from repeating the publications containing the allegations of the kind that led to the Previous Action (the Existing Injunction).

6.    The Existing Injunction remains in force.

7.    Notwithstanding the Existing Injunction, the Defendant continued publishing statements defamatory of the Plaintiffs. In the Plaintiffs’ view, some constituted contempt of court in the Previous Action. Contempt proceedings have since been initiated. For those statements that probably fell outside the scope of the Previous Action and the Existing Injunction, the Plaintiffs commenced the present proceedings.

The Present Proceedings

8.    This action has been commenced for 3 specific publications. These are:

8.1.    A 2.2.06 publication of the Defendant’s letter to Jyoti Munsiff (Publication No. 1)

8.2.    A 7.2.06 publication on the Shellnews.net website (Publication No. 2)

8.3.    A 8.2.06 publication on the Shellnews.net website (Publication No.3)

See:     Paragraph 11 of Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai’s affidavit of 5.4.06

9.    The Plaintiffs’ position is that the facts show that the Defendant will repeat these defamatory statements, or publish words to like effect, unless restrained by Order of Court.

See:     Paragraphs 28 to 35 of Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai’s affidavit of 5.4.06

10.    Interim injunctive relief is therefore sought by this application.

SUBMISSIONS

The Legal Principles

11.    The following passage from Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edition), Vol 28  ¶166 [TAB A] represents the law:

The High Court may grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant, whether by himself or by his servants or agents or otherwise, from publishing or further publishing matter which is defamatory or of malicious falsehood. It is not necessary to show that there has already been an actionable publication or that damage has been sustained. In appropriate cases an injunction may be granted ex parte and before the issue of a writ.

12.    In other words, an injunction can be granted even before damage occurs. The present facts are therefore a fortiori.

13.    Defamation actions however involve special considerations. In THE NEW STRAITS TIMES PRESS (M) BHD v AIRASIA BHD [1987] 1 mg 26 [TAB B], the Federal Court ruled that the ordinary AMERICAN CYNAMID principles did not apply. The substance of this decision was the recognition that too free the granting of an interlocutory injunction in defamation cases would stifle free speech.

14.    There is however no blanket ban on interlocutory injunctions in defamation actions. In short, there is no untrammelled right to continue defame pending trial. In NGOI THIAM WOH v CTOS SDN BHD [2001] 4 MLJ 501 [TAB C] the court summarised 4 factors that must he satisfied.

14.1.    The statement must be unarguably defamatory

14.2.    The statement must be clearly false (ie. justification will fail as a defence)

14.3.    There must be no available defence

14.4.    There must be evidence of an intention to repeat the defamation

15.    The Plaintiffs case is that all 4 factors are satisfied.

16.    The Defendant has sought to contend that the publications were by Donovan, not him. This is disingenuous and not the law. As a matter of law, publication is the dissemination of defamatory material to at least one other person:

See:   PULLMANN v HILL & CO [1891] 1 QB 524 [TAB D]

17.    Here, there was communication from the Defendant to Donovan. Donovan then republished the defamatory material. In law, this is deemed to be publication by the Defendant as the publication by Donovan was the natural and probable consequence of the publication from Huong to Donovan.

See:  SLIPPER v BBC [1991] 1 All ER 165 [TAB E] where the court ruled thus:

The law would part company with the realities of life if it is held that the damage caused by publication of a libel began and ended with publication to the original publishee. Defamatory statements are objectionable not least because of their propensity to percolate through underground channels and contaminate hidden springs.

18.    The same point is made in McMANUS v VICTORIA BECKHAM [2002] 1 WLR 2982 [TAB F] (at ¶34 of the report):

If a Defendant is actually aware

18.1.    that what she says or does is likely to be reported, and

18.2.    that if she slanders someone, that slander is likely to be repeated in whole or in part,
there is no injustice in her being held responsible for the damage that the slander causes via the publication. I would suggest further that if a jury were to conclude that a reasonable person in the position of the defendant should have appreciated that there was a significant risk that what she said would be repeated in whole or in part in the press and that that would increase the damage caused by the slander, it is not unjust that the defendant should be liable for it.

19.    That is precisely the case here.

The statements are unarguably defamatory

20.    A publication is defamatory if it lowers a person in the estimation of right thinking members of the public generally.

See:     CHOK FOO CHOO v THE CHINA PRESS BHD [1999] 1 MLJ 371 [TAB G]
SYED HUSIN ALI v SHARIKAT PENCHETAKAN UTASAN MALAYU BHD [1973] 2 mq 56 [TAB H]

21.    On this test, the Publication Nos. 1 to 3 are unarguably defamatory.

Publication No. l

22.    The full text of this publication is exhibited as ‘TK-2′ of Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai’s affidavit of 5.4.06. It is a letter to Jyoti Munsiff the newly appointed Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell plc.

23.    We now merely highlight certain passages from that publication to show  their defamatory nature:

As you know I am being sued by eight companies of the Royal Dutch Shell Group for alleged defamation. The relevant Shell companies have obtained a restraining order which prevents me for speaking the TRUTH in line with the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. My rights to freedom of expression have in fact been restrained for over 18 months. I had thought that Shell supported this UN Declaration, but it seems that this assumption must be incorrect.  I would welcome your clarification on this point as I am sure that my analysis must be at fault?
…

Something really must be seriously amiss. The answers to my questions are important if – as I assume must be the case – you genuinely want to encourage whistleblowers to speak out if they become aware of misdeeds which are in contravention of the Shell Statement of General Business Principles (SGBP).

It is surely essential in this regard that an even-handed approach is adopted in such matters so that would be whistleblowers  and  parties with genuine grievances are not deterred by the prospect that they could be ostracized, victimized, sacked and/or sued if they do come forward. In regards to this paragraph I am speaking of course in general terms, not about my case, as that would be inappropriate under the current ongoing litigation.

This letter also seeks confirmation from you for me to make significant inputs for improving ethics and compliance at Shell. I sincerely believe that for obvious reasons I have a unique perspective on the question of Shell employees engaging professionally in whistle blowing when faced with ethical, moral and/or legal dilemmas.

I also believe that it is fair to make readers of this communication aware that apart from the High Court Restraining Order, I am also constrained in my comments by a threat of imprisonment.

I am sure that the eight Royal Dutch Shell companies who collectively decided to sue me believe that their action is an appropriate and proportionate response to the alleged defamatory comments by one former Malaysian employee of 29 years.

[Our emphasis]

24.    The Plaintiffs case is that these passages clearly identify and defame the Plaintiffs. The crux of the defamation is the allegation that the Defendant, a ‘whistleblower has been gagged to prevent him from speaking the ‘TRUTH’. He has been restrained from revealing ‘misdeeds’ that are illegal, immoral and or unethical. The allegation therefore is that the Plaintiffs have abused the legal process afforded by the High Court

25.    However viewed, the allegations are defamatory.

26.    The Defendant denies this conclusion. He contends that Publication No. 1 merely asserts that the Defendant has been restrained from speaking freely presumably in accordance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

See:  Paragraph 20 of the Defendant’s affidavit of 19.5.06

27.    We respectfully submit, that even this meaning, which the Plaintiffs do not accept as the proper interpretation, is defamatory.

Publication No. 2

28.    The text of this publication is exhibited as ‘TK-3′ of Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai’s affidavit of 5.4.06. It is a compilation of scandalous allegations of wrongdoing against the Plaintiffs.

See: Paragraphs 16 to 22 of Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai’s affidavit of 5.4.06

29.   There can be no question that the publication defames the Plaintiffs. The allegations include the following:

However Dr Huong discovered in 1997 and the immediately following years that the SGBP are in fact empty promises – propaganda for use in the circumstances described above and in global advertising campaigns such as “Profits and Principles” or “the triple bottom-line”. The SGBP amounted to nothing more than a confidence trick to encourage the public and financial institutions into investing Shell.

[Our  emphasis]

See:      Page 2 of the printout exhibited as TK-3′ to Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai’s affidavit of 5.4.06

Dr Huong was, as far as I am aware, the first Shell employee to blow the whistle at Shell (in 1997) about the deliberate falsification of hydrocarbon reserves.

[Our emphasis]

See:     Page 2 of the printout exhibited as ‘TK-3′ to Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai’s affidavit of 5.4.06

His objections to bending his principles by turning a blind eye to wrongdoing proved to be the turning point in Dr Huong’s previously highly successful career with Shell. He was humiliated. victimised, put under intolerable pressure which made him ill and was ultimately, sacked, thereby further aggravating stress brought about by Shell’s actions against him. Prior to the wrongful dismissal, the domestic inquiry heard that this medical record in the care of the company doctor could not even be found. The records had mysteriously disappeared, just like Shell hydrocarbon reserves.

[Our emphasis]

See:     Page 3 of the printout exhibited as 7K-3′ to Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai’s affidavit of 5.4.06

30.    The ‘affidavit’ contains related defamatory assertion of, for example, racism against the Plaintiffs

Mr Alfred Donovan has pointed out in the same vein that Shell settled a retirement funds related class action law suit brought against it by its American employees, whilst it has for years, dragged out retirement fund related lawsuits brought by its Malaysian former employees.

If there is any substance to Mr Donovan’s speculation, then we would have to add ‘racist policies: to the description listed above.

[Emphasis in original]

See:     Page 14 of the printout exhibited as ‘TK-3′ to Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai’s affidavit of 5.4.06

31.    Even the Judge in the Previous Action is impugned:

Shell is well aware of the situation I have described because Mr Alfred Donovan faxed a letter to the relevant Judge in Kuala Lumpur on 5th July 2004 admitting his facilitating key role, yet Shell has not taken any action against Mr Alfred (or John) Donovan other than the domain name proceedings against Mr Alfred Donovan via the WIPO (which was unsuccessful).

See: Page 16 of the printout exhibited as ‘TK-3′ to Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai’s affidavit of 5.4.06

32.    Significantly, the Defendant does not deny any of this. Instead, his position is that his allegations are justified, a matter to which we will return.

See: Paragraph 22 of the Defendant’s affidavit of 195.06

Publication No. 3

33.    This publication is an email dated 8.2.06 sent by the Defendant to Human Rights Watch. It is exhibited as ‘TIC-5′ of Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai’s affidavit of 21.6.06.

34.    In it the Defendant sanctions the publications sent to Human Rights Watch on his behalf on 7.2.06 (Publication No. 2). His specific words were the following:

. . . I do not take issue with anything stated in the Draft Affidavit bearing in mind that I am under threat of imprisonment and it would not be prudent for me to comment further on this matter other than to state in general terms that I support freedom of expression.

35.    This is a cynical tongue-in-cheek response. It is undoubtedly an endorsement of the previous publication (which in any event we say is the Defendant’s). If the Defendant refuted the statements, all he had to do was to say so. That would not have been a breach of the Existing Injunction in the Previous Action. It also would not have been defamatory.

36.    If he endorsed them but felt constrained by the Injunction in the Previous Action, he should have either not responded, or responded privately. By responding publicly the Defendant was endorsing the publication. The ‘affidavit’ he endorses includes the assertions of racism and judicial impropriety referred to in paragraphs 26 and 27 above.

The statement must be clearly false

37.    Given the nature of the allegations, this is clearly the case. The Defendant has gone on wild rampage with Alfred Donovan to consider any wrongdoing done by any Shell company around the world. He then extrapolates from the particular – individual instances of impropriety anywhere in the world – and reaches a general conclusion that the 8 Plaintiffs have been dishonest, engage in criminal conspiracy and criminal conduct generally.

38.    In the rambling megalomaniacal ‘affidavit’ the Defendant elevates himself to a pedestal and concludes from the fact that he was dismissed and that this was because he had discovered the ‘TRUTH’.

39.    Yet, in all this, not one iota of specific fact is raised to justify any of the very serious allegations against the Plaintiffs. As we have seen, these include allegations of:

39.1.     Deliberate falsification

39.1.    Destroying documents to thwart legal proceedings

39.2.    Racism

That is why he had to run to the Donovans for assistance. Even now, not one specific fact of wrongdoing has been supported.
There must be no available defences
Justification

40.    As we have explained, this defence will fail.

Qualified privilege

41.    The Defendant concedes that this defence does not apply. He does not plead it.
Fair Comment

42.    Fair comment also cannot apply.

43.    RATUS MESRA SON BHD v SHAIK OSMAN MAJIM (1999) 3 MLJ 529 (TAB I) sets out the 4 elements of this defence. These are:

43.1.    The words complained of must be comment and not fact

43.2.    The comment must be on a matter of public interest.

43.3.    The comments must be based on the facts.

43.4.    The comments must be one that a fair-minded person can make.

44.    Here, save for possibly the second element, the other 3 elements cannot be met. In particular, the allegations of dishonesty, racism, falsification of-documents etc are allegations of fact. No question of comment arises.

45.    In any case, malice vitiates this defence as well.

46.    In LEE KUALA YEW v DAVIES (19891 SLR 1063 (TAB J) the court explains that express malice is publishing something:

. . . without considering or caring whether it was true or false; they were indifferent to the truth. They are equated with a publisher who publishes materials or articles without considering or caring whether they are true or false. In that sense, they acted recklessly. In my judgment, for the reasons I have given, the fourth defendants were also actuated or affected by express malice.

47.    ”Over-the-top’ abusive and snide statements like those made by the Defendant, aided and abetted by Alfred Donovan constitute clear evidence of an absence of honest belief.

48.    This case is very similar to another case in the High Court in Suit No. 52-23.89¬2002 (Perusahaan Otomobil Kedua Sdn Bbd & 2 Ors v Fong Khee -Choong, Richard). In that case, the Defendant bought a car from the Plaintiff which he subsequently discovered, had a minor defect He demanded a replacement but all the Plaintiffs was willing to do, was to repair the minor defect There was an impasse.

The Defendant then launched into a tirade of abuse on the Internet against the Plaintiffs. He made various allegations of corruption, deceitful conduct, etc, etc against the Plaintiffs all because there was a defect in his car. The Plaintiffs sued and obtained an interim injunction against the Defendant, granted by Justice Hishamuddin.

The Defendant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed with costs. Justice Hishamuddin’s Grounds of Decision are annexed as (TAB K).

49.    Further, if the Defendant’s publications are genuine, there would be no need for the facade of carrying on with defamatory publications and claiming that they are by Alfred Donovan.

CONCLUSION

50.    For the above reasons, we respectfully pray that the application be allowed with costs.

Much obliged.

Dated this 13th day of October, 2006.

MESSRS T H LIEW &  PARTNERS
SOLICITORS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

This Plaintiffs’ Skeletal Submissions is filed by Messrs T H Liew & Partners, solicitors for the Plaintiffs abovenamed and whose address for service is at 4-02, 4th Floor, Straits Trading Building, 2, Lebuh Pasar Besar, 50050 Kuala Lumpur.

Tel    03 2612 9000
Fax    03 2612 9001
Ref    LTH/SARAWAK SHELL/00599-06

599/knpf/12.10

“I also have doubts about the wisdom of allying yourself so closely and obviously to the Donovans, who seem to have raised Shell-baiting to such a level of vituperation (cleverly mixed with plenty of apparent balance and reasonableness) that it is difficult to see how either side can compromise without losing an unacceptable amount of face (Shell) or a rich and ongoing stream of damages (the Donovans).”

Richard

INTERESTING POSTINGS ON THE “TELL SHELL” INTERNET DISCUSSION FORUM FOR UNCENSORED, OPEN AND LIVELY DEBATE (BEFORE IT WAS FIRST SECRETLY CENSORED BY SHELL LAWYERS AND THEN CLOSED DOWN BY SHELL). POSTINGS MADE IN OCT 2005

Posted By Dr. John Huong (right) nickname: “none”: Subject:  Wakey Wakey on Freedom of Expression under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (United Nations): 01/10/2005 14:53:23

Wow, I’ve just read the posting below about the 2005 Accountability Rating – the article by Alfred Donovan- the owner of the worlds self proclaimed ultimate gripe site, ShellNews.net. I am baffled why Shell allows him to comprehensively tear Shell management to pieces on countless postings all over the Internet, including Shell’s own website – while I am not allowed the freedom to make criticism of Shell, my former employer of 29 years.

There has not been a peep from the Shell webmaster on this or any other issue for some time as fellow contributors have noticed. We seem to be on our own here guys!

For anyone who doesn’t know, it is a matter of public record that I am currently the subject of a High Court Injunction and a Restraining Order obtained collectively against me by eight Royal Dutch Shell Companies. As far as I know, I am the only person on the entire planet whose freedom of expression is being curtailed by a multinational goliath. It ís a strange feeling. I suppose that I should count myself lucky that unlike the Rossport Five, I was not imprisoned. I am not criticising Shell for having Irish citizens jailed but merely pointing out the fact that they put in jail for three months. I am regretfully not in a position to express my comments about Shell one way or the other (although I would love to do so) though I trust that it is in order for me to congratulate the Rossport Five on their release from prison.

I have read on ShellNews.net that the Rossport Five may have a case against Shell for wrongful imprisonment. Now that Shell has reversed course in respect of the Rossport Five, it might wish to withdraw its legal action against me, in which event I too would seek legal advice about the question of appropriate redress, as part of any resolution of Shell’s action against me.

Returning to the question of my freedom of speech on the Internet, why is it that Mr Donovan is astonishingly candid and damaging commentary about Royal Dutch Shell is allowed by Shell lawyers? I have a copy of the legal statement made by Shell International Petroleum Company Limited in May 2005 recognising HIS rights to say anything he likes about Shell on his website. This just happens to be the same website where the posting of articles under my name led to Shell commencing proceedings against me. As indicated, for some unknown reason I do not enjoy the same basic human rights as Mr Donovan.

Does he get special treatment because of his age (88), race, nationality, or perhaps because he is a Shell shareholder? I am baffled. Is it proper that his rights are deemed to be different and superior to mine? I am not criticising the fact that I am being penalised because it would be dangerous for me to say anything about Shell – merely trying to fathom out why I have been singled out. There must be some valid reason which has not occurred to me although I cannot imagine what it could be.

Perhaps the hibernating Tell Shell webmaster will enlighten me on this matter? Wakey Wakey!!!

Or does anyone else have any suggestions????????

Posted By Richard: Re: posting by none: 02/10/2005 10:24:41

none, (or should I call you John?),

You say:

“Perhaps the hibernating Tell Shell webmaster will enlighten me on this matter? Wakey Wakey!!!

Or does anyone else have any suggestions????????”

I think that many will empathise with your Wakey Wakey message. It is quite frankly embarrassing that the webmaster has failed of late to respond to any postings. Failure to respond to postings which are illiterate or offensive is understandable, but there are plenty of recent postings which made valid points which should have drawn a response even if only “working, reverting”. Perhaps when and if Shell confirms the appointment of its new outside PR adviser we will get some response, though it may well be that the corporate attitude is: “Lie low and say nothing; they’ll soon get bored”. (I hope we don’t).

With regard to your request for suggestions, my advice would be that it would be in everyone’s interest to seek an amicable resolution of your differences with Shell informally and outside a public forum. Regardless of your perception of the rights and wrongs, hurling abuse at Shell is unlikely to produce a positive result when you are a single individual up against a phalanx of Shell lawyers who are spending shareholders’ money rather than their own.

I also have doubts about the wisdom of allying yourself so closely and obviously to the Donovans, who seem to have raised Shell-baiting to such a level of vituperation (cleverly mixed with plenty of apparent balance and reasonableness) that it is difficult to see how either side can compromise without losing an unacceptable amount of face (Shell) or a rich and ongoing stream of damages (the Donovans).

Having said all that, there are probably quite a few people who would sympathise with your view that it is, shall we say, odd that you are effectively gagged and they are not.

Posted By Dr John Huong: In response to Mr. Richard’s message ìnoneî: 03/10/2005 16:17:50

Dear Richard,

It amuses me how I ended up as “none” and that is very appropriate to my career- a man with no name (and no job). It brings to mind a character played by Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti Western. When I logged onto TellShell, I was asked to provide a nickname and since I do not have one, my reply was “none”. Had I been asked for my pen name, my reply would probably be John Huong. So yes, please call me John in short.

I am grateful to you for your empathy. As a former Shell employee, you may have some idea of what it means to be in my shoes, investing some 29 years with Shell. For the first 23 years I received excellent-outstanding staff appraisals before my career came to an abrupt stop. I am not in the position to say more about the circumstances of my sad departure from Shell because I do not want to breach the current Malaysian High Court Injunction. The situation is serious, as I have been threatened by Shell with imprisonment if I were to exercise my human right to freedom of speech, for example by making any insightful criticism in a healthy exchange of views about Shell management, or Shell activities – the supposed purpose of this Internet forum.

As a former hard working and loyal Shell employee, I have empathy with the TellShell webmaster and the predicament he or she is in. I was once assigned to Shell corporate affairs dealing with issues management and if I were given the same difficult and almost impossible task which the TellShell webmaster has, I would probably be busy looking for another job (that may be what the webmaster is currently doing).

You mention Shell’s new PR advisers. They will also have a challenging and daunting task ahead of them in view of recent events reported in the news, including spectacular Shell management climb-downs on potential tax liabilities for UK shareholders in Royal Dutch Shell and the release from prison of the “Rossport Five” following which Shell is now faced with the apparent prospect of a contempt hearing for allegedly supplying false information to the court.

I must again thank you Richard for a mature gentlemanly approach to resolving differences with Shell on an informal internal basis. I can tell you wholeheartedly and sincerely that it was always my wish to resolve matters on that eminently sensible basis. I consistently pleaded with Shell Management to resolve the difficulties in an amicable way – the very words contained in an email from me to Shell management in 1997. For now, I cannot say anything that may be construed as damaging to Shell’s reputation and in any event, would not wish to hurl unfounded abuse at Shell, as I do not need to. I note your comment that I am “a single individual up against a phalanx of Shell lawyers who are spending shareholders’ money rather than their own.” Indeed Shell has all the necessary resources of one kind or the other, a proxy given by many shareholders to their Directors and that may perhaps change with resolutions made at the next AGM. All I can say is that I trust in God and His power in all circumstances and I am not going to contest that luminous statement of yours. Maybe Shell will take action against you for suggesting that naughty statement of yours, which you have put as a matter of fact. Is it the Donovans who are leading you from the path of righteousness or maybe Tippi can provide some insight?

I first stumbled in amazement across Chapter 22 in the Donovan website while surfing the net a couple of years ago. Via their good offices, my predicament was quickly made known around the world. Since then I have come to have a deep respect and affection for Alfred and John Donovan. I thank God Almighty for putting us into contact. I have never met either of them, but would trust them with my life. I hope and believe that they feel the same about me. Please believe me Richard when I say that I have come to know these gentlemen very well and I know them to be men of the very highest integrity who, contrary to the implication behind your assertions, put principles before money. They, like the Rossport Five, will fight for their rights, principles and beliefs irrespective of the size, power and influence of an opponent.

As to your comment about “a level of vituperation”, that seems to me with all due respect to be a rather sweeping generalisation. Specific examples would assist me in an assessment as to whether that comment is well-founded. It is true to say that there has been extensive negative commentary from the Donovans about Shell, but at the same it also applies to commentary from all news sources that have covered stories about Shell since January 2004. Is it the Donovans and the news media who have fabricated a string of negative stories about Shell, or were the stories well-founded i.e. has there been a high level of management misdeeds and incompetence which created the events which led to the proliferation of negative reports? If you don’t mind, I will not answer my own question. I have no appetite for imprisonment in the event that I should say the wrong thing.

Like many other Shell stakeholders I have been astonished and amused by how Alfred Donovan has managed to end up with the dotcom domain name for the $200 billion company Royal Dutch Shell Plc even after Shell launched proceedings against him through the World Intellectual Property Organisation. At the venerable age of 88, he miraculously achieved a unanimous verdict in his favour in August without even having any legal representation. Alfred really is a giant slayer par excellence. When will he be receiving his knighthood?

There is one other point to make. I view these matters from a different perspective to anyone else in the world. I am, to the best of my knowledge, the only person of any nationality who is under potential penalty of being thrown in prison if I were to criticise Shell on the Internet (and you are correct in saying that they are people who sympathise and empathise with me). I am, as is already indicated, also the only person who is currently the subject of an ongoing libel action by eight Royal Dutch Shell companies. This fact confirms beyond any doubt that Shell DOES take legal action against anyone it believes has stated falsehoods about Shell management or stands in the way of their project plans for principled reasons. (Of course the libel action will not succeed if my comments are judged to be well-founded, but that issue is not material to the point I am making.) If Shell truly believes and can prove that anything alleged or stated as fact by Alfred Donovan is untrue, then Shell would surely have sued him for libel. If it does not wish to do so because of his age, then they could sue his son John as he has also been very forthright in his many published comments about Shell. In this connection, I draw your attention to the following legal statement displayed on the home page of the Donovan website, RoyalDutchShellPlc.com (AKA ShellNews.net): (SHELL IS OF COURSE FREE TO ISSUE LIBEL PROCEEDINGS IF ANYTHING PUBLISHED HEREIN IS UNTRUE). You and the world must draw your own conclusions about Shell’s reticence to take up the invitation.

Dr John Huong
Miri, Malaysia

PS. I am aware that an independent mediator is being sought to help resolve the Rossport Five controversy. Like Alfred Donovan, I am readily available to provide my impartial services Ö

EXTRACTS FROM A RESPONSE POSTED BY ALFRED DONOVAN

REPLY TO RICHARD, DR HUONG & “COMMONSENSE”  FROM ALFRED DONOVAN: 10/10/2005 00:01:09

Dr Huong has already pointed out, as my son and I have previously, that we do not create bad news about Shell. We leave that function to Shell management. It is not our fault that there has been so much bad news over such a long period. That too is down to an incompetent dishonest Shell management.

We are certainly more consistently outspoken about the failings of Shell management than any other news source. That is partly because we feel more involved and frustrated by the reserves fraud, bearing in mind that no one listened when we rang the alarm bells far and wide about a corporate culture of cover-up and deceit deeply ingrained at the highly levels of Shell management.

DR JOHN HUONG

We do reciprocate the sentiment expressed by Dr Huong in terms of regard, respect and affection. We have always found him to be a man of unbending principles. This was his undoing at Shell. He insisted on working within Shell’s Statement of General Business Principles, pledging honesty, openness and integrity in all of Shell’s dealings. That was a huge mistake in view of the then prevailing corporate culture as mentioned above. In other words, the hard reality rather than the PR spin and hype. If people in high places, such as Sir Philip Watts, had displayed the same integrity, the reserves fraud would never have happened.

Dr Huong has been victimised by Shell. He has been robbed of his human rights and humiliated by Shell. His perilous legal position has already been mentioned in his posting. No oil company will employ him while the defamation action brought by eight Royal Dutch Shell companies remains hanging over his head, possibly for years given the slow legal process in Malaysia. How is it possible that this one individual could have destroyed Shell’s reputation, as is claimed by Shell in its High Court Writ? Anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of Shell is aware of the people responsible for leaving Shell’s reputation in tatters. Dr Huong is not one of them. With all due respect, he was a lowly Shell geologist.

I am also baffled, like Dr Huong, on why I have Shell’s written permission to castigate Shell management on the Internet while he is sued by them for doing a lot less. I have been publishing very forthright articles for several years (Richard has been aware of my track record for over a year). In comparison, Dr Huong has published nothing on the net. I published a few articles under his name. That is the extent of his crime. It is inexplicable that Shell has taken draconian legal measures against Dr Huong, even threatening him with imprisonment, while encouraging me, the publisher of his alleged libel, to exercise my right to freedom of speech on the Internet and to continue my Shell commentary activities at full throttle. I am British, he is a Malaysian. I am ancient, he is in his forties. So is it ageism or racism? We still have no answer.

Shell directors have used shareholders money like confetti to escape penalty for their disgraceful behaviour (settling one US class action lawsuit after another and paying SEC and FSA fines) while at the same time persecuting an honest man, who like the Rossport Five, has stood up for his principles.

As to whether our litigation against Shell has been a profitable exercise, the answer is no. Spread over so many years the compensation has not been worth the effort in monetary terms, but there is more at stake than money.

Some multinationals have more power and influence than many Countries and someone has to be prepared to stand up to them if they trample on the rights of ordinary people, whether they be stakeholders or otherwise. It is fair to say that the Internet has helped to redress the balance between the weak and the rich and powerful of this world, who must not be allowed to use their financial clout to suppress freedom of speech, as Shell has successfully done thus far with Dr Huong.

“My deeply held religious beliefs and moral convictions put me into a very difficult position when I realised that Shell shareholders were being deliberately deceived in regards to hydrocarbon reserves: I also had reservations in regards to certain health and safety issues of conscience which caused me great concern because it is not in consonant with my values and belief system.”

Dr John Huong: an employee of Shell Malaysia for 29 years, a Production Geologist and Asset Integrity Engineer

By John Donovan

Dr Huong, a deeply religious man with high principles, blew the whistle internally on Shell senior managements deliberate inflation of claimed proven hydrocarbon reserves. As a consequence he was the subject of unprecedented collective litigation by EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies who waged a campaign of terror against him for several years trying to silence him.  He was buried alive in multiple injunctions, many seeking his imprisonment. This was in blatant breach of his human rights.

Because of sinister events surrounding the litigation, including spying activities, Dr Huong used bodyguards to protect his personal safety when appearing in Court.

Printed below is a letter Dr Huong prepared for a prospective employer in 2005 in the hope of finding employment to support his family. It was of course a hopeless task bearing in mind the draconian litigation, which would frighten off any would be employer in the oil industry. No company in the industry would wish to upset Shell.

Attention is drawn in particular to the text displayed in bold print. Some personal information has been redacted.

After several years of litigation, in which Shell falsified evidence, Shell settled both cases: Their claim against Dr Huong in respect of postings on this website and his claim against Shell for wrongful dismissal.

We always advised Dr Huong that Shell would never allow evidence in the defamation case to be heard in open court and this analysis turned out to be correct.

THE LETTER FROM DR HUONG.

1 October 2005

My name is Dr John Huong Yiu Tuong and was employed by Sarawak Shell Berhad and Sabah Shell Petroleum Company Limited. I am 48 years old (DOB: XXXXXXX), married with two children.

Up to May 2003, I had been working from rank and file in the above upstream E&P companies for 29 years as a geologist specialising in geo-sciences. My expertise evolving over the years are Micropalaeontology, Petrology, Sedimentology, Field Geology, Bio-Sequence Stratigraphy, Well-site Geology, Operation Geology, Exploration Geology, Reservoir Geology and Production Geology. I am experienced in Petrophysics, Well Engineering, Reservoir Engineering, Production Technology and Petroleum Economics acquired after working both onshore and offshore for long time in a multi-disciplinary team-based environment.

My role was to find, appraise and produce petroleum recovered from both clastic and carbonate rocks that were deposited under diverse palaeo-environment (terrestrial to deep submarine sediments) from Cenozoic to Mesozoic age stretching throughout the North West Borneo Shelf containing hundreds of wells. My recommendations to management to drill the offshore Western flank of the D18 Field was the result of an appraisal core study from which several million barrels of added oil were recovered.

I was a custodian for integrated data for source rocks, reservoirs petrophysical data and cap rocks properties. I had contributed actively in geological and engineering data as inputs for correlation, geo-modeling, source rocks and charge studies, prospects generation, inter-field development, block biddings, assets swap, notional to full Field Development Plans, Wells and facilities designs. In 1993, I was invited by the Russian Oil & Gas Ministry and the Eisenhower Foundation of USA to the Ural-Volga valley, Kazakhstan and Siberia to study oil and gas basins in former Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).  I have presented technical papers (i.e. Evolution of the Baram Delta since the last 5,000 years to present; Differentiation of hydrocarbon types from ditch-cutting analysis; Geology of Labuan Island, etc) for international audience at the Geological Society of Malaysia. With two other colleagues we invented the Mobile Suitcase Exhibition for which I was responsible for visiting and motivating students to pursue further studies in geosciences at every high schools located in East Malaysia as part of the government programme on the Malaysianisation Policy.

In 1997, I was the Production Geologist for the Kinabalu Field Development project and when the first oil was produced, I was transferred to the Ketam Field. Next I was again transferred to Corporate Affairs to deal with Issues or crisis Management, and Community Programmes. Then I was moved to geology as a Stratigrapher to integrate subsurface data for all key wells and I published a Sabah regional correlation framework used for predicting the hydrocarbon habitat within the various System Tracts.  At the same time I was consulting geologist to Petronas Carigali for an offshore Well Bokor Tenggara that encountered extremely hard overpressures with well flowing far beyond the casing burst strength.  It was safely brought under control. Subsequently I was given to work on Umbrella contracts for Surface Production Engineering facilities and techno-benchmarking for best practices. Finally, I became an Asset Integrity Engineer for both onshore (Liquefied Natural Gas Plant, etc) and offshore (platforms, etc) production facilities. My last job position was an Assistant Technology Coordinator.

I had attended many seminars, conferences, third party courses, Shell in-house courses and regional courses conducted at Leeuwenhorst in the Netherlands, Belgium, Brunei, Indonesia, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, etc. In the same way, I have conducted many technical courses in geosciences for many Petronas staffs between late 1970s -1980s, university graduates training, newly recruited Well petroleum engineers before they commence their offshore work in petroleum engineering. I was Quality assurance team leader for technical library documentations and disaster recovery plans.  While in the company, I was once its Vice President to the Malaysian Senior Staff Council (MSSC).

Outside office hours, I like to teach, coach and mentor on various subjects.  I have taught Organisational behaviour University of Southern Queensland; prepare training manual and conducted Capacity building workshops for biologists and forestry staffs from Yayasan Sabah at Forest Research Centre located within the Danum Valley Conservation; workshops on Customer Care Services for staffs at Curtin University of Science and Technology-Sarawak, financial planning and project management courses for firms.  I have also carried out community work in serving the needy. Currently, I am a District Fellow for Lion Clubs International District 308-A2 for Kuching Kota Samarahan and Director for Education for environmental protection and prevention of drug abuses in collaboration with various government ministries and non-governmental organizations.

I left Shell under unfortunate and unhappy circumstances. Because litigation is under way, matters are sub judice. As a consequence I am constrained to a large degree in commenting on specific issues involved, including for example details of my claim for wrongful dismissal. I will however provide general background information, including what I believe to be the major causal factor of my dismissal and the subsequent litigation.

My deeply held religious beliefs and moral convictions put me into a very difficult position when I realised that Shell shareholders were being deliberately deceived in regards to hydrocarbon reserves: I also had reservations in regards to certain health and safety issues of conscience which caused me great concern because it is not in consonant with my values and belief system.

Being a loyal employee, I raised matters strictly on an internal basis, but my reservations were frowned upon by Shell management. The senior management figures principally involved in the reserves scandal and other controversies were subsequently forced to resign and the parent companies have now been unified. A new management team is in the process of being formed, with a new Chairman recruited in an effort to restore Shell’s former reputation. With the same objective in mind, much of the litigation connected with the scandal is being settled out of court. Commonsense suggests that this policy will in due course result in Shell settling the litigation in which I am currently regretfully involved. I genuinely wish the new Shell management well for the future, but I am, under the circumstances, keen for a fresh start with a different company.

In the meantime, I am grateful for the kind support given to me by the New York based Shell Shareholders Organisation (www.shell2004.com or www.royaldutchshellplc.com) which is campaigning for Shell directors to act at all times in accordance with Shell’s own ethical code: The Statement of General Business Principles.

Finally I would like to stress that I was always a loyal Shell employee. It was out of respect for the once proud reputation of Shell and its ethical code that I felt honour bound to bring serious matters to the attention of Shell management. If my well intended warnings had been heeded, perhaps the whole reserves scandal and the huge damage inflicted globally on Shell’s reputation could have been avoided.

I would be very happy to provide more information and/or referees needed by your good office.

Dr. John Huong Yiu Tuong

Honesty and Integrity once the pillars of culture in the Shell Group, no longer appear to exist.

John Scruton

Extracts from an email we received from Shell Whistleblower Dr John Huong (some personal information omitted)

From: huong john <drjhuong@XXXXXX.co.uk>
Date: 18 August 2004 14:00:32 GMT+01:00
To: John Donovan <john@xxxxxxxx.net
Subject: RE: FW: SHELL WHAT ELSE no3

Dear Mr. Donovans,

Good evening. I pray that you are both in the best and that Mr. Donovans Senior have been to see the doctor for a check up.

I got news from my lawyers that the affidavit that was filed was acknowledged by the High Court and that they have written to the Shell Lawyers informing them of the application.  The Shell Lawyers have two weeks to respond from yesterday and the hearing will take place on 21st September 2004. After the case is set aside I will again start to contribute to your website if Shell is not going to start talking like gentlemen!

Since I am unable to read the official Chinese language (Mandarin), I will get someone to translate them.

So Mr. Richard Wiseman was very unhappy with the news postings of the no nonsense evidence against Shell Senior Management?

Just now I was surfing through Tell Shell and I came across two postings which I believe I have not seen before. The article by John Scruton is very telling on the timeline and Shell Leadership when the crisis started to evolve and develop and subsequently erode staff who carried many years of Shell’s memory as a long time employee.

The article by Lloyd Taylor, he is probably the same person whom I knew when he was the Exploration Manager for Sarawak Shell Berhad/Sabah Shell Petroleum Co., Ltd when the Kinabalu Field was discovered.

These articles are very interesting in shedding much light into the leadership pertaining to strategic and operational aspects of adding and/or not adding reserves in Shell Operations.

I hope you find this story and many more interesting to the complex business of adding/reducing hydrocarbon reserves.

Thanks,
John

POSTINGS ON TELL SHELL

John Scruton: Current Crisis in the Shell Group – Delve Deep: 21 Apr 2004 07:55

I would suggest that the current crisis is but a symptom of greater underlying problems within the Shell Group. The move over the past 10 years to restructure the organisation and centralise control at levels where there is little understanding of the real issues at local operational levels, is probably a major factor in contributing to the management style currently prevailing in the Group. Honesty and Integrity once the pillars of culture in the Shell Group, no longer appear to exist.

As a major corporate shareholder has stated, the Group has under performed in then past 10 years!

The past 10 years have been a disaster within the Group as changes have been forced upon the organisation, without course to the consequences of such changes. Centralised control is not a culture that should prevail in an organisation where good initiatives and sound planning principles should be normal practice. Too much power is placed in the hands of individuals who do not have the necessary skills or disciplines to manage such a wide scope of responsibilities.

A once great organisation has allowed itself to be hijacked by the politically correct and so called innovative thinkers of modern organisational structure. This has been a disaster for the company not only in E & P but, in other areas of its business, and also on the effect on employees. The continual changes imposed without any thought of the real benefits has had a detrimental effect on the Group’s business and reputation.

There are many managers in the Shell Group and not enough good leaders (there is a difference!). It is time to review the management structure and organisation of the Group, not only at the top but throughout its organisation, down to national levels.

The current crisis is deeper than the problems at the top, and management behaviour throughout the organisation needs to be overhauled. There needs to be an acceptance of much greater accountability at all levels of management (Leadership!) throughout the company

John Scruton

********************************************************

L Taylor: Credibility and Reputation: Reserves Booking Responsibilities: 17 Apr 2004 02:00

Rightly, the response of the two Boards of Directors of Shell to the matter of the substantive and recurring overstatement of oil and gas reserves, and the subsequent poor process of disclosure to the market, has been to hold accountable two of the most senior leaders of the company. These leaders played a pivotal role in defining the business culture and in ensuring the inadequate oversight of the systems, processes and people that led to the situation.

However, the problem is clearly larger than the two dismissed leaders, and is not solved by the dismissals.

Shell E&P runs extensive peer review processes, under the direction of Regional Business Directors and a Technical Director, all of whom were members of the EP Executive Committee at the time the oil and gas reserves of the company were overstated. Were these people asleep on the job? Were they complicit in the overstatement of reserves, receiving financial and or career incentives as a result? If not, then what is the explanation for the failure of the governance process in the Shell EP business and what is to be done?

I suggest that the solution involves fundamental attitudinal change, to address the requirement for greater individual accountability at all levels of leadership in the company. This is at the heart of the current credibility crisis and the degree to which it is met will determine the long-term viability of the Shell EP business.

Regards
Lloyd Taylor

Dr John Huong: an employee of Shell Malaysia for 29 years.  Dr Huong was the Shell Production Geologist who blew the whistle internally on senior managements deliberate inflation of claimed proven hydrocarbon reserves.

By John Donovan

Printed below is our most recent correspondence with Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

It is self-explanatory.

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 2 February 2011 14:47:14 GMT
To: gavin.white@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Subject: Section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act

To:

Mr. Gavin White
Company Secretarial Department
Shell International Limited

Dear Mr. White

Section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act

As you may be aware, my father Alfred Donovan and I reached an agreement with Royal Dutch Shell Plc Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, Mr Richard Wiseman, that in future our Subject Access Request applications to Shell would be made on a joint basis i.e. in the names of Alfred and John Donovan.

Bearing in mind that a year has passed since our last application, we formally request that you please send us the information to which we are entitled under section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 in relation to our dealings with Shell. This is to include all documents, drafts, reports, emails, communications, correspondence, transcripts and any other information held by Shell, which contain either or both of our names, or abbreviations thereof, or codes which signify our names.

In this connection, we have supplied some background information, which will hopefully assist in locating relevant information. To avoid constantly repeating the formal request and the range of information set out in the above paragraph, please take it that the specified range of information automatically always applies, including whenever we use the term: “We request all relevant information”.

At the time of our last application, just over a year ago, on 13 January 2010 to be precise, we were unaware that Shell had resolved all litigation with Dr John Huong, (aka Dr John Huong Yiu Tuong) the former employee of Shell in Malaysia. We now seek all relevant information in the control or possession of Shell stretching back to and including 2004. We have previously been advised by Shell that you are not obliged to provide SAR information relating to litigation in progress. That situation no longer applies in relation to Dr John Huong. We are aware that RDS Plc head office lawyers were involved in the litigation, which stemmed in the first place from information we published on our website.  A UK registered company was one of the eight companies within the Royal Dutch Shell group that sued Dr Huong for defamation, obtained multiple injunctions against him and sought his imprisonment for alleged contempt of court in respect of further information posted on our website. Since we played the key role, it also seems likely that reference was made to one or both of us and/or our website in the settlement documents.

For many years Mr Richard Wiseman has been the key person at Shell dealing with all matters relating to us. Particular attention should therefore be applied to his files including contact with the news media, matters relating to WikiLeaks, Wikipedia, and matters relating to Shell Oil USA, including the industrial espionage investigation of Shell by U.S. authorities, as authorised by U.S. Defence Department attorneys to be confirmed to us by a high level U.S. Intelligence source. We would also request all relevant information concerning the related former Shell employee whose name will already be known to Shell.

Our first SAR application revealed that a crisis reaction team had been set up to counter our website activities. The content of one email was decidedly hostile towards us. Please supply any further correspondence or documents relating to the same or any subsequent team, third party, or person, involved in any such activities such as industrial espionage and/or hacking on behalf of Shell, perhaps involving Shell Corporate Affairs Security. In this connection we also request all relevant information naming or referring to one of both of us in the possession or control of Shell Global Security. Please also address this request to Mr Ian Forbes McCredie OBE, the former British Secret Service officer who is head of Shell Global Security and Richard T. Garcia, the former senior FBI official of 25 years standing, who is Global Security Advisor for Shell International. We request all relevant information.

Please also supply any relevant Shell correspondence with Saudi Aramco, and/or the Saudi Arabia government/regime, and/or Motiva Enterprises, in which we are referred to or are named. We request all relevant information.

Other matters and events in the last years which may have generated relevant information include the Shell Global Address Book database leaked to us; the Corrib Gas Project controversy, including alleged death threats made to our Shell insider contacts; our supply of Shell insider documents to U.S.federal investigators in relation to the Gale Norton controversy (they approached us); the controversy surrounding Shell’s plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean; the controversy surroundings Shell’s dealings with Nigeria, Libya and Iran; the controversy surrounding Shell’s historical dealings with Hitler and the Nazis.

Basically, we seek all relevant information held by Shell in all departments including PR/media, which has not previously been supplied.

Can you please ensure that we can identity where Shell has redacted information, as this is impossible to do on many documents you have previously supplied. There should always be heavy black lines denoting redaction, not just white spaces. Without such indication, it is sometimes impossible to identify for certain when redaction has taken place, for example at the end of a line of print (where the print margins are not justified) or at the end of a sentence, if there are just blank spaces indistinguishable from the non printed background of the document.

If you need further information from us, or a fee, please let us know as soon as possible.

If you no longer handle these requests for your organisation, please pass this email to your Data Protection Officer or other appropriate officer.

Best Regards

Alfred Donovan and John Donovan

RESPONSE FROM ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC 17 FEBRUARY 2011 (PDF)

MAIN TEXT

17 February 2011

Mr John Donovan’s email to myself dated 2 February 2011 requesting information pursuant to section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 will be dealt with on behalf of the appropriate companies in the Royal Dutch/Shell Group by Company Secretarial, Shell International Limited.

Please find enclosed two copies of a Subject Access Request form together with an Information Leaflet. The Subject Access Request form is for any Personal Data that any Shell Group Company operating in the UK may be processing apart from images from CCTV equipment. If you want information about or a copy of images from CCTV equipment please ask for a separate Subject Access Request form.

Each of you will need to complete a Subject Access Request form. The Subject Access Request form is divided into two sections:

Part A- asks you to give information about yourself that will help us confirm your identity. You will be asked to provide evidence of your identity by producing documentation with your application. When dealing with a Subject Access Request, the Data Controller has a duty to ensure that information he holds is secure and must be satisfied that you are who you say you are before disclosing the information.

Part B – asks you to declare that the information you have supplied is correct and to confirm that either you are the Data Subject or to confirm your relationship with the Data Subject.  A person who impersonates or attempts to impersonate another may be guilty of an offence.

If you wish to obtain information about Personal Data and a copy of any Personal Data from a Shell Group company operating in the U.K please each complete a Subject Access Request form and return it enclosing the following documentation:

• A copy of an appropriate identification document for each of you;
• Any other authorities requested;
• The fee (or donation if appropriate) of £10 (only one fee of £10 is necessary);

Once we have received the completed forms, together with the appropriate documentation and fee where requested, we will consider the request. Unless certain exemptions apply or we require more information from you to identify the information you are requesting, we will supply you with information and a copy of the Personal Data requested within 40 days of receipt of the completed forms.

Please note that the form enclosed with this letter does not cover images captured on CCTV equipment. If you require information about, or a copy of these images please ask for a separate Subject Access Request form.

Yours faithfully

Gavin White

Shell International Limited

OVERTON v. SHELL OIL COMPANY:

On December 22, 1999, Mr. Overton formally announced to Ms. Sistrunk that he was working with the Department of Interior and of his status as a whistleblower. On January 19, 2000, while Mr. Overton was working on MP252, federal agents boarded the platform armed with weapons and issued grand jury subpoenas based upon alleged violations of environmental regulations.

BY JOHN DONOVAN

We have already published articles revealing how Royal Dutch Shell terrorized a Malaysian whistleblower, the former Shell Production geologist, Dr John Huong. Dr Huong has accused Shell of psychological torture.

In the USA, there are Federal and State laws to protect whistleblowers from the retribution of malevolent employers such as Shell Oil.

The following are extracts of an email we received from William Overton, a Shell whistleblower who reported serious safety breaches on Shell production platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico, including falsification by a Shell contractor of U.S. Mineral Management Service reports supplied to the U.S. Department of the Interior.

The information at the head of this article is an extract from a judgment by the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

The entire remarkable document detailing the treatment Mr Overton received at the hands of Shell can be read here. He was awarded over $600,000 in damages. The appeal court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Shell terminated Mr. Overton because he was a whistleblower. The damages award covered lost wages, pension, fringe benefits, and emotional distress.

In his email, Mr Overton makes reference to an investigation by the U.S. authorities concerning Shell bribes to MMS employees, which included *Cocaine and Sex. For the record, we were approached by the U.S. authorities in relation to a bribery investigation relating to Shell Oil and supplied the U.S. government with leaked Shell internal documents.

We may publish further information supplied to us by Mr Overton.

*See SEX, DRUGS & CORRUPTION SPONSORED BY SHELL

EMAIL PURPORTEDLY FROM WILLIAM OVERTON

Dear Alfred,

I was a loyal front line employee and protected Shell as a good employee should.  Unfortunately, Floyd Landry with Shell Oil Company  offered me up to MMS so he could keep his bonus.

When I confronted Floyd and told him that I broke no laws and I was being railroaded he laughed at me and instructed me to take it to court.  He also offered me $5000.00 to settle and quit Shell Oil. I filed my own proceedings and soon found out I was outmatched. I learned to play as dirty as I was treated.

I reported violations to MMS to discover they were being investigated for accepting bribes from Shell that included Cocaine and sex.

William C. Overton, Jr.

By John Donovan

As regular visitors will be aware, this website, which is operated on a dedicated high traffic server hosted in the USA,  is being brought down on a regular basis. By coincidence or otherwise,  it often seems to happen when we publish negative information about Royal Dutch Shell, such as in WikiLeak cables, or revelations concerning Shell Malaysia whistleblower, Dr John Huong.

“Distributed Denial of Service attack, it is when a server is bombarded with so many requests that it can’t respond to legitimate traffic.”

We suffered another “event” overnight. The following is an extract from an emailed warning notice from our server hosting company in Dallas. Note that the traffic to the website was “under a crippling load that was preventing support staff from accessing and investigating this matter.”

This message is being sent to notify you that your server royaldutchshellplccom (70.86.44.66) has experienced the following event: We have received a monitoring alert for this server stating that ************ is no longer working. While the server is online it is under a crippling load that is preventing us from accessing and investigating this matter. Please stand by while I forward this ticket to our data center so they may restore remote connectivity to this server.

So, is it a problem caused by the popularity of the site, or deliberate coordinated denial of service attacks by an unknown party?

If it is Shell, they would have farmed the dirty tricks assignment out to a third party, as they have in the past (and been caught doing so). We know for certain that an aggressive counter-measures team has been set up and targeted on us and our website. We have a Shell internal document confirming this fact.

It is a federal crime to carry out a cyber attack and we might consider notifying the FBI except for the fact that Shell has used specialist facilities in Pittsburgh, partly funded and staffed by the FBI, as part of its response to our lawful activities. Shell’s head of security in the USA Frank T. Garcia, is a former senior FBI official, which perhaps explains the special relationship.

There is also a possibility that it is a case of mistaken identity. It is the only Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com website in existence and some activists in a foreign land corrupted, polluted and plundered by Shell, may think that this is the official Royal Dutch Shell Plc website and wrongly believe they are attacking Shell. That would be ironic.

Article by Alfred Donovan

By June 2006 Shell Malaysia legal boss, Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai (right), had got himself into a most dreadful mess.

Two years earlier he had advised EIGHT different companies, all within the Royal Dutch Shell Group, to bring a collective defamation action against a former Shell Malaysia Production Geologist, Dr John Huong. The action was in respect of information published on an earlier version of this website, which I jointly own and operate with my son, John Donovan.

After reading the Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai Affidavit and related High Court Writ, both issued in June 2004, I immediately notified the Judge and Shell that they were suing the wrong party. So they all knew within days of issuing Draconian proceedings, that Shell had no legitimate grounds on which to pursue the action against Dr Huong.

Despite that knowledge, Shell begun a long campaign to terrorise him into accepting blame for something he did not do. He had  never published a single allegation against Shell. We prepared, edited and published articles based on information supplied to us by Dr Huong (and other Shell Malaysia current or former employees) by email and in numerous telephone conversations. We had also received leaked Shell internal emails.

Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai was not interested in the truth. He was determined to persecute Dr Huong.

It was now June 2006. I had recently supplied a sworn Affidavit setting out the truth.

In response, Thavakumar provided his own Affidavit to the High Court demanding my presence in Malaysia for cross-examination in relation to my Affidavit, despite knowing that I was 89 years old.

In a related High Court Summons, Shell demanded that my Affidavit be “expunged from the record” if I did not appear in the Malaysian court for cross-examination.

It was, however, obvious from the content of his Affidavit that Thavakumar was desperate to put me off from actually making the trip. He knew that if I did do so, it would almost certainly demolish Shell’s entire case against Dr Huong, resulting in a huge loss of face for Shell Malaysia management and Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai. So he was in a real fix.

This explains the allegations in his Affidavit, which if accepted by the Judge, woud undoubtedly have led to my immediate imprisioment in Malaysia under a throughly corrupt dicatorship regime in bed with Shell for decades.  The same Affidavit contained reference to contempt proceedings which were already in progess against Dr Huong (seeking his imprisonment).

Extracts from some of the statements made by Thavakumar in his Affidavit: “Donovan is outwardly contemptuous of this Honourable Court”; “Donovan impeded or interfered with the administration of justice”; “admits, aiding and abetting the Defendant in breaching the Injunction Order…”; “the Malaysian courts have ruled against the Defendant because they have been influenced by the Plaintiffs.”; “Donovan continues to impede or interfere with the administration of justice.”

Very serious charges.

We had offered to be cross-examined at the Malaysian Embassy in London, but this was not acceptable.

Shell eventually gave up in the face of potential negative publicity arising from pressuring an 89 year old UK citizen to travel to Malaysia in such circumstances. In 2009 Shell settled the case with Dr Huong.

RELATED ARTICLES

Royal Dutch Shell tried to blackmail reserves whistleblower

Shell whistleblower Dr Huong accuses Shell of psychological torture

Judge told Shell that ‘they should sue John Donovan in the UK

Dr John Huong accused Shell lawyers of tampering with evidence