Screenshots

Let's face it. Hell would have to feeze before there's freedom of press in Malaysia. With due respect to our journalist, they are gagged by their editors who in retuen, are controlled by the govt. Thats why the govt is never held accountable and every now and then the govt can have gag orders on certain issues.

Look at the newspapers in UK, India, Australia and the US. Now that's what i call freedom of the press.

But then again, are Malaysians ready for freedom of the press ?

Theres no Freedom of Press in Malaysia though the Government has 'Freedom to Press'.

Dr. Sanjeev,

Malaysians are ready for freedom of the press but our government is not.

Adm CH or whatever you name
is...

Speak for yourself. You may be ready, but are MALAYSIANS ready for freedom of the press? I seriously doubt it. How many Malaysian willing to read what they don't agree in the press?

SOmeone once said "I may not agree with what you say, but i'll defend you right to say it". How many Malaysian are brave enough to practise this right? Will you?

Most Malaysian are not bothered about their right to a free "anything". They have become too comfy.

Maybe the wrong place to say this jeff, but 300 plus people are on the streets of kucing today without a job and jalan riong had a hand in it , hope you guys sleep well tonight.

There's an old saying "the people get the government they deserve". It also extends to the fact that we get the newspaper we deserve.

The fact is that Malaysians are not interested in demanding more of their newspapers. How else can you explain the daily dreck that we see in the Star? That is not a newspaper - it is a tabloid. Journalistic standards are slipping because demands of the job is not news, or commentary or insight, but just something to pass the time while eating breakfast before going to work. Has anyone seen the typos and hideous spelling mistakes in the Star?

The newspapers we have represent what we want to read. They are only responding to market forces. So before we ask about self-censorship and freedom of the press, we should ask if we want newspapers of that standard and quality. Sad to say, I think most Malaysians simply couldn't give a damn.

I suspect it's a plot. Sarawak's election is around the corner and Taib's paper which he uses for his propaganda is now been suspended? Whatever it is, Sarawakians including myself have been longing for a new administration!!!!

by the way, who can tell me what stuff in malaysia is having the freedom?

If we are ready for total freedom of the press then I guess we are ready to have our own Page 3 girls in our own local newspapers.

Are we ready for this, I don't think so.

dr.strangelove,
Malaysian are not ready for press freedom!? Huh. I agree with the comfy part, but not the readiness part.

It is absurd that say "not ready". I don't think Malaysian people are so dumb and stupid! Unless you are asking "Is Malaysian ready to push for press freedom", than it is another story.

If Malaysia can accept 10 scandouls every year, what make you think Malaysian are "not ready" for press freedom.

"what make you think Malaysian are "not ready" for press freedom?".....read some forign newpapers...nit the online one...the hard copies...see whats in them and then ask yourself will Malaysians like to read what they don't agree? Try getting the hard copies of The Times, The Independent (UK) and The Australian and The NY Times. Read their editorials...read their op ed columns and also their letters to the editors page.

I agree with LegalBeagle. Most Malaysian are more intersted in who raped whom? We like to read crap. read Malay Mail. News about broken water pipes and cracks in bridges/building are NEWS only in Malaysia. Thats why i spend lots of money reading foreign newspapers. The Times Of India for instance is an excellent example of an independent newspaper in an Asian country. I can comment of papers in Japan and Korea as i have not read em.

Remember the NY Times once openly denounced Bush Jr as a presidential candidate? Can you imagine any newspaper in M'sia denoucing even an MP for re-election?

Most Malaysian are just too sensitive. With F of the P comes responsibilty. Serious responsibilty. Do you think our journalkist are ready for this. Look at the carp dished out from Jalan Riong. With all due respect to Citizen Nades (The Sun), the only responsible journalist i know are either writing sports columns or have retired.

"If Malaysia can accept 10 scandouls every year, what make you think Malaysian are "not ready" for press freedom." WHat do you mean by "accept"? Please elaborate....

Imporant Typo: ?".....read some foreign newpapers...not the online ones...

Damn!!Important Typos: ".....read some foreign newpapers...not the online ones...

Whether there's a plot or not, that's something that is not confirmed. But for this particular case, I strongly supported the Government's stand. There's no such thing as press freedom without responsibility. Our society is too complex for such privilege.

Its interesting to note that the Singapore PM has stated categorically that the cartoons in question will never be published in Singapore newspapers.

He also said that Singapore believes that racial and inter-religious harmony is more important than press freedom.

Yet no one seems to take Singapore to task over such views. Foreign investors love the place. Many foreign broadcasters have their regional headquarters and studios in Singapore. And Singapore is one of the major allies of the US - a champion of press freedom and free speech.

Go figure.....

i echo serpico. 300 people out of job just like that... without notice or anything (dunno got compensation or not?). pity them. that's why i blog spefically about this.

when the 'top' made mistakes, when the 'top' made decisions, it is the 'bottom' that suffers. how sad.

Couple of good points raised here. One is that maybe Malaysians don't want freedom of the press. Seeing this whole cartoon controversy, and seeing how everyone gets so worked up about things like that, perhaps it's better to sacrifice that freedom. I mean, we wouldn't want lynch mobs and May 13th all over again would we? So yeah, it probably is true that Malaysians aren't mature enough to handle freedom of the press yet. This is a departure from my usual idealistic stance, and it pains me to say it :)

It's also true that we prefer news about who raped who, who's going out with who, which sex scandals are happening where, who won Akademi Fantasia. What Malaysians read in their newspapers are either fluff (ie cracks in drainpipes, as someone pointed out) or sensationalist gossip. Here in the UK, if one prefers stuff like that, then they read the Daily Star. But if they want good opinions, well written editorials, world events that MATTER (not our ex-PM insulting Australia or things like that) then they read The Times or The Independent. I sincerely advise anyone who can to try and read either of these papers. Put a copy of the Star beside it, and you will see what I mean. None of this "world's largest mooncake" dominating the front page I can tell you.

Oh, and three words to strike fear into any Malaysian's heart: Internal Security Act.

I know I will get flack for this, but here is some interesting readings on Freedom of the Press from wikipedia.org

"For most developed countries, freedom of the press implies that all people should have the right to express themselves in writing or in any other way of expression of personal opinion or creativity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers...Freedom of the press is an extremely problematic concept for most non-democratic systems of government since, in the modern age, strict control of access to information is critical to the existence of most non-democratic governments and their associated control systems and security apparatus. To this end, most non-democratic societies employ state-run news organisations to promote the propaganda critical to maintaining an existing political power base and suppress (often very brutally, through the use of police, military, or intelligence agencies) any significant attempts by the media or individual journalists to challenge the approved "government line" on contentious issues. In such countries, journalists operating on the fringes of what is deemed to be acceptable will very often find themselves the subject of considerable intimidation by agents of the state. This can range from simple threats to their professional careers (firing, professional blacklisting) to death threats, kidnapping, torture, and assassination." Also just a few other quotes about the subject:

The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. ~Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764

The dirtiest book of all is the expurgated book. ~Walt Whitman

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

I am thankful for all the complaining I hear about our government because it means we have freedom of speech. ~Nancie J. Carmody

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. ~Abbott Joseph Liebling, "Do You Belong in Journalism?" New Yorker, 4 May 1960

A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad. ~Albert Camus

If you don't have this freedom of the press, then all these little fellows are weaseling around and doing their monkey business and they never get caught. ~Harold R. Medina

Lastly in regards to the drawings:

Obscenity is not a quality inherent in a book or picture, but is solely and exclusively a contribution of the reading mind, and hence cannot be defined in terms of the qualities of a book or picture. ~Theodore Schroeder

The so-called freedom of press in the civilised western world, are sometimes actually filled with pack of lies, distortions and prejudice. The unfortunate part is that the untruth becomes the truth.

The so-called freedom of press in the civilised western world, are sometimes actually filled with pack of lies, distortions and prejudice. The unfortunate part is that the untruth becomes the truth to many ignorants.

Well how ever you want to look at it or call it. I will always value myself making my own decision about what is true or not. I wil not leave it up to a government, a religious leader or church, or even my friends to decide for me what I should hear, read or not. At least I am able to make my own decisions for myself and go out and look for answers on both sides. Yes a lot of times mistruths to get tild and as the above quotes said:
"If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error...A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad.) I would rather a paper that sometimes make mistakes and has a few mistruths in order to have a free and truthful paper most times. In other words, yes there are untruths and there are even sometimes direct lies, however becuase there is a free press, then there is the very real chance that those lies will come out eventually or in another paper. But with no freedom, it is certain there will never be any exposure, do remmber there have been many wonderful things that came about becuase of freedom of the press in many societies, truths abotu government cover ups, about wrong doings in religion, about hgih ranking judges, etc.

The cartoons were in bad taste, that is very true, it is sad what they did and why they did it. But that is no reason to have laws against press, but more so to have an open press, becusae it is this freedom of the press that is allowing us also to say how bad those caretoons are in the western papers as well. Or did we forget many western papers have said these cartoons are bad also and they would not print them. This also is a free press statement and choice that protects us all.

Agree to dr.strangelove and hann on the newspaper we have here... Not vocal enough.

Agree to beebee too. The west call their opposition government 'regime'... but the biggest 'regime' is still the one who request for a stagering USD400 plus billion for military budget...

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and are not clothed."

by Dwight D. Eisenhower

rmo,
Why would you get flak for saying something like that? It seems to make complete sense to me. Ultimately you are your own censor, and your own decision-maker. Simple as that.

"And Singapore is one of the major allies of the US - a champion of press freedom and free speech."
I think you have got it the wrong way round. The US needs a place to park and maintain their warships.

Foreign investors love authoritarian stable regimes - why wouldn't they?

Singaporean PM Lee Junior's ban on the pictures is at least consistent with Singapore's antidemocratic policies.

agree with rmo. contestation of ideas. ultimately (may take a few twists and some time, but) truth will out. and it's our common sense and logic that will help us see it. so, education is all-important for this, not a matter of excelling in studies, but facing up to the truth, dissecting it and dealing with cognitive dissonance.

Wise word, no matter what degree of press freedom the world has, a vast majority of people will still be misled by the power-to-be. It's a gullible world; a world of imperfection.

Press freedom can only be actualized where the right to offend and the right to take offense do not lead to violence. No body can hurt your feelings without your cooperation. If a cartoonist says his drawing is that of your prophet which he has never seen in person, why would you want to agree with him and dignify his conception with violence?

Why should we punish the whole press if one person made an error?

Do we punish a child if the parent committed a crime?

The press has given apology and even sacked the editor.

POSTED HERE IN THE INTEREST OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON THE INTERNET

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.

LATEST CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING SHELL WHISTLEBLOWER DR JOHN HUONG

6 August 2006

Mr Kandiah
T H Liew & Partners
Level 28 Central Plaza
34 Jalan Ismail
50250 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia

Dear Mr Kandiah

RE: LAW SUIT NO. S2-23-41-2004
EIGHT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL COMPANIES –v- DR HUONG YIU TUONG

I am writing with regard to the contempt of court proceedings which you have brought against Dr John Huong of behalf of the EIGHT multinational companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group which you represent in the related defamation action. I understand from Mr Eric Siow of Lee Ong & Kandiah, the esteemed lawyers acting for Dr John Huong, that the hearing is now to take place on Thursday, 17th August. I further understand that the plaintiff Shell companies are asking the High Court to expunge the testimony provided by my father, Alfred Donovan, if he is not produced in Court by Dr Huong for cross-examination.

My father is in his ninetieth year. He is partly disabled and has had half a lung removed. He has a heart condition and diabetes. This may all be good news for Shell management but it is simply not realistic for my father to undertake such an arduous journey given his advanced age and his medical condition. I would assume that neither T H Liew nor Shell management would like to put his life at risk. Even if I am wrong in that assumption, I am sure that Dr Huong, who is a deeply religious man of the very highest integrity, would not want him to make the trip in such circumstances, even though my father’s evidence is vital to his defence to prevent Dr Huong from being committed to prison. As Mr Siow is aware, we had to make special arrangements so that my father could appear before a local Notary Public for the translation and swearing of his affidavit because he was not well enough to travel to the nearest Malaysian High Commission.

Because of the difficulties in arranging the relevant formalities, we prepared an alternative affidavit in my name. Indeed, Mr Siow provided me with the finalised version. As you are aware, I have been intimately involved in all relevant matters, as is indicated in my fathers’ affidavit. However, we were then able to arrange for a Malaysian translator to travel to our locality to attend at the offices of the local Notary and therefore reverted to my father’s affidavit. If we had any inkling that his testimony might be required in person, in Malaysia, we would have used my affidavit from the outset.

From one aspect, my evidence could be of more assistance to the court because due to my father’s poor hearing, I handled all of the telephone conversations with Dr Huong. My father only spoke with Dr Huong briefly from time to time.

I would be prepared to supply the affidavit in my name already prepared and travel to Malaysia for cross-examination provided that your EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell clients, cover all reasonable costs involved, including provision of suitable independent local legal representation. This seems a fair way forward bearing in mind that it is Shell that is insisting on a cross-examination. I would require access to independent legal advice before I travelled to Malaysia so that the Malaysian lawyers appointed to advise and represent me could study relevant documents. They could then decide if I would need to seek assurances about the possibility of contempt of court proceedings being brought against me, bearing in mind comments made by you in your affidavit. While I would happily stay at the local Marriot, I am less keen on accommodation involving a small window with iron bars.

In other words, if Shell wants testimony in Malaysia from the party which admits publishing the alleged defamatory comments, then it is available provided Shell covers reasonable costs. There is precedent as Shell International General Counsel, Richard Wiseman, would confirm. He described the arrangement between ourselves and Shell in that instance (which we negotiated with a Shell Chairman) as being “bananas”. However even Mr Wiseman would probably recognise that this would be a practical and fair solution on this occasion. In any event, Shell’s profits from a few seconds worth of global income generated from the record high prices of oil would easily cover relevant expenses.

As Mr Wiseman is also aware, I have some experience of being cross-examined by a barrister acting for Shell. Perhaps Geoffrey Hobbs QC, said to be the most intelligent man in Britain, would like to resume our interesting three day marathon cut and thrust discussion about Shell, this time in a more exotic location. It would be nice, if on this occasion, we could avoid Shell undercover agents, witness intimidation, court room ambush tactics and most importantly, a heavily biased Judge with undisclosed Shell connections.

By coincidence or otherwise, Mr Justice Laddie subsequently resigned in controversial circumstances after my father had complained to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, about the Judges bizarre behaviour. In another coincidence, Sir Hugh Laddie now works for a consultancy firm which has Shell as a client. In other words, I hope that unlike our last experience with Shell’s disgraceful misuse of power and influence, the Malaysian judiciary operates in an impartial manner offering a level playing field for litigants.

I am encouraged by the fact that a Malaysian High Court Judge ruled that Shell acted unlawfully in making deductions from the retirement funds of Shell Malaysia employees. I am less encouraged by the fact that in the relevant case brought by 399 current/former Shell employees (known as “Team A”), an appeal brought by Shell seems to be dragging on indefinitely while in the meantime, elderly members of Team A are ill and dying. I am also baffled that in an apparent clear breach of natural justice, Shell is being allowed to insist that although Dr Huong has been unemployed for over two years and has no money left after paying legal fees, he still has to travel 1300 kilometres to a High Court nominated by Shell. This is despite the fact that there is a High Court in the City where Dr Huong resides.

The tactics against Dr Huong are in line with our own experience of Shell lawyers deliberately and ruthlessly following a policy of draining the resources of a financially weaker opponent. In our case, we even have a letter from a Shell lawyer threatening to “make the litigation drawn out and difficult”. We warned far and wide about a thoroughly dishonest, incompetent Shell management, which engaged in a corporate culture of cover-up and deceit. Most people probably thought that we were cranks.

That view may have changed after the world wide shock of the Shell reserves scandal described in a BBC programme as the biggest fraud in corporate history. This was followed by a string of other scandals: the Corrib debacle in Ireland (where Shell had five people jailed), the sale of tainted gasoline, fictitious trading, the Brent Bravo tragedy, a $10 BILLION cost overrun on the Sakhalin 2 white elephant project in Russia and the continuing crimes by Shell against Nigerian nationals in the obscene plunder and pollution of Nigeria. As a Shell insider pointed out to me yesterday, there is a common denominator in most of these scandals: his name is Malcolm Brinded. This happens to be the same Shell Executive who ignored my warnings of corruption inside Shell and ignored a letter from Dr Huong pleading to meet with him.

With all due modesty, I doubt if anyone else (other than Shell management) has as much knowledge of the numerous skeletons rattling around in the proverbial bulging Shell scandal cupboard. I therefore relish the prospect of giving evidence.

Please bring this offer to the attention of the honourable court.

Yours sincerely
John Donovan

cc.
Mr. Eric Siow, Lee Ong & Kandiah
Dr John Huong
Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell Plc
Mr Malcolm Brinded, Executive Director, Shell Exploration and Production
Richard Wiseman, General Counsel Shell International Petroleum Company Limited

More Information

DR JOHN HUONG

Shell whistleblower, Dr John Huong, a former Shell geologist, is being sued for defamation by EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies, including Sarawak Shell Bhd; Shell Malaysia Trading Sendirian Berhad; Shell Refining Company (Federation of Malaya) Bhd; Shell Timur Sdn Bhd; Shell Exploration And Production Malaysia B.V.; Shell Oil And Gas (Malaysia) Llc; Shell Sabah Selatan Sdn Bhd and Sabah Shell Petroleum Company Ltd. Dr Huong, a Malaysian, seems to be rather outnumbered. It is not a case of David vs. Goliath but more like David vs. King Kong.