SHELL WHISTLEBLOWER No 2: Third Installment…16 June 04
Dr. John Huong Yiu Tuong
Miri, Sarawak, East Malaysia
Subject: Feedback, Accountability and Role of the Legal Manager
16th June 2004
Shell Malaysia Legal Manager Mr. Thavakumar Kandiahpillai is closely involved in my case and I would like him to continue in his position to assemble answers from individuals named on the circulation list of my letters to Shell. I would like him to supply answers to the following and other important questions I have posed (and will continue to be posed), so that I can publish them for my global audience:
“Does Shell Management in Malaysia promote and support Injustice, Lies, Deception, Cover-up and Conspiracy in the country they operate?”
1. Can you ensure that everyone, including your good self provide answers as to their position in relation to the questions posed below? If you only give brief answers e.g. YES/NO, NO COMMENT etc that would be better than ignoring my questions? Mr. Mohidin Sulaiman (reporting to Mr. Rosli Lompoh) had already given me his reply earlier covered in the domestic inquiry notes of proceedings on Day 5: “I called Mohidin this morning as witness. He asked what it was about and I told him that I would like to clarify some items relating to enlisting the services of my assistant to which he raised his voice and said ‘what the hell this is’?”
2. Do you find that it is acceptable for Mr. Hee Len Hee, the General Manager of Technology and Information Services to not respond to my concerns pertaining to work issues such as work development and competencies, career progression, work dimension, work placement, job description, etc. An email containing the above issues of 29th January 2003 was never responded to nor discussed. Can you accept this kind of behavior and accountability from a manager of the multi-national giant?
3. Do you approve of a domestic inquiry being conducted even though I had responded in my “show cause” letters, that if the company had felt that I was wrong, then its policies in the disciplinary procedures should be followed i.e. issuing reprimands consisting of official oral or written warnings? I asked you again “is it right and ethical to give show cause letter to staff if you have not exhausted the standing procedures of giving warning letters? You might like to start with that. Furthermore, your show cause letter was dated the 10th March (2003), the day I was officially given the sick leave.” Was I wrong to go on sick leave given by Shell medical doctor from 10-11th March 2003?
4. Do you find it acceptable for Shell to humiliate me openly by insisting on a domestic inquiry without any prior formal investigation? Whose good name was defamed in the process, me or “the company and its officers”? I have asked if a formal investigation had been made during cross-examination but the Chairman Mr. Abu Yusuf said “It had been answered” and when pressed further he said “It is not necessary because it had been answered”. I would like to ask you Mr.Kandiahpillai, how the formal investigation was carried out in my case since you are in the disciplinary board?
5. Do you find it agreeable or fair that I should be put under area arrest (“…you must remain in the Miri/Lutong area…”) so that I could not get external advice and help prior to the hearing of the domestic inquiry? Is that lawful? I was also informed that “in event that you fail to present yourself at this inquiry, it will proceed in your absence” I believe this is widely known as a Kangaroo court – definition: an unfair trial in which the rights of the accused and precepts of justice are ignored and the outcome is usually known/decided beforehand.
6. Do you find it right to charge me for being allegedly “absent from work” “without leave and without obtaining our prior consent or permission”, among other dates, the 25th February 2003 (afternoon) where the header of the email is shown below. Was 13:23 an afternoon or not an afternoon?
From: Huong, John JYT SARAWAK-EPT-TCO
Sent: 25 February 2003 13:23
To: Chan, Soon-Onn SO SARAWAK-EPT-SMS; Hee, Len-Hi SARAWAK-EPT; Chadwick,Jon
SHELMSIA-CH/EP; Dominique D SEPI-EPA
7. Do you find it acceptable that threats were made by Shell to my assistant Mr. Joshua Betie. He was already released from his duty by his superior, the Head of Security, Mr. Abang Razali. My assistant was stolen and an explanation given by Mr. Rosli Lompoh was Joshua’s unavailability to assist due to operational reasons. I have raised my objection that my assistant was stolen from me and I was stressed to find a replacement at the last hour before the hearing at the domestic inquiry. I raised my objection, among others, for the domestic inquiry not to proceed because I was denied “the right to engage an assistant for the domestic inquiry” Despite my protest, the domestic inquiry went ahead to which I said, “I will proceed under protest”
8. Do you find that the way the domestic inquiry was conducted and findings presented to you were made in a professional way? You were in the panel of the disciplinary board together with Mr. Hee Len Hee and Mr. Rosli Lompoh. Do provide copies of the written recording that emerged from the domestic inquiry to most of the members in the letter circulation list for evaluation. Have you given a copy of this recording to the Miri Labor office already as I have formally requested this to be done in my earlier correspondence with you.
9. Do you find it acceptable that all the legitimate objections be addressed before the commencement of reading the charges? I raised my concerns to the chairman and the panel members but were not listened to. The chairman for the domestic inquiry said: “I will not take any more objections” and “we will proceed to read the charges” . What do you say about this attitude?
10. Do you find it acceptable that a domestic inquiry involved a Mr. Larry Chung, the facilitating officer from another company, the Oil Products division of SMEP, headed by Mr. Lim Haw Kuang. Is it proper/lawful that another company should be involved in an internal employee disciplinary matter and that serious unfounded allegations made against me should be disclosed to them or indeed ANY third party? My name was unfairly defamed. I raised this issue because “this arrangement violates the fundamental rules of DI engagement” and I proposed to get an “official view of our legal department” and I was told that the “Legal advisor (Lily Rosita Kusari) confirmed that Larry being one of Shell Malaysian staff can be appointed by Sarawak Shell Berhad to be the Facilitating officer for the domestic inquiry. This is an official view. Domestic here refers to Shell Malaysia”. Is this still true?
11. Was the panel conducting the domestic inquiry competent? What do you say when the accused employee during a cross examination of a company witness to ascertain facts/events/situations was frequently interrupted by the chairman saying “It is repetitive and/or not relevant”. This gave what was supposed to be a domestic inquiry an atmosphere akin to that of a formal court proceeding? Is this professionally correct? For my curiosity, Mr. Abu Yusuf, how many times have you been the chairman or the panel member for domestic inquiries? What kind of training did you receive for this type of work?
12. Do you agree that when the testimonies from witnesses which were read back, agreed, and signed during the hearing were, on the following day, found by me to have been tampered with? This was discovered after a few days (Day 5) into the domestic inquiry. We had an agreement at the onset of domestic inquiry to capture all recordings in verbatim and that any slight changes made should be agreed and documented during the read back. In good faith I signed off the recordings of the print out immediately after the read back.
The Chairman of the domestic inquiry said, “John, based on the testimony that you signed earlier is granted. This is based on the records that were not included were merely your observations, ie the long silence made by CW1 (Max Prins) is due to enable the panel to record the question asked by AE before Max gave his response. In fact, I signaled this to him so that proper and accurate recording of the questions can be made. With regard to Othman for giving me a piece of paper is to enable me to look into the question that was just raised for repetitiveness or relevancy.” Mr. Abu Yusuf, why was my version, the agreed documentation during the read back was found to be different from yours? If what you explained was true then you and your panel members would have defended your “proper and accurate recording” during the read back, isn’t that correct? Do you think that was an unethical act and laced with malice?
Only then did I understand why on the first day the computer and the Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) screen were used and that any changes made were observable by all concerned in real time. However the use of the LCD panel was abandoned from the second day onwards till the end of the 10 days of the domestic inquiry. Isn’t this modus operandi a perversion of justice?
13. Do you find that justice is seen and said to be done when Mr. Hee Len Hee, the General Manager for Information and Technology services who was personally involved in the case, was ALSO the same person who testified in the domestic inquiry; the same person who along with Mr. Rosli Lompah and yourself Mr. Kandahpillai were presented the findings of the domestic inquiry. He is also the one who recommended the gravest form of corporate punishment; the one who signed off the subject matter of the letter entitled “DI-Termination Letter” and again the person who told Mohidin to tell me to pick up the termination Letter from Len Hee’s office”. Is this not what is known as a conflict of interest and an abuse of power?
14. Do you agree that I was terminated? If you do, why was I not given the required three months notice or paid cash in lieu of as agreed in the employment agreement?
15. Do you agree that I should have been punished (if any punishment was warranted) with suspension prior to the domestic inquiry due to human resource issues and not committing criminal acts? I was interrogated for 10 grueling days of hearing at the domestic inquiry (probably the longest domestic inquiry ever held). Was it fair to punish me again for another 20 days suspension after the conclusion of the domestic inquiry, then punish me further with the termination and punished me yet again by selling off my leave entitlement without my consent after charging me for absence from work without leave? How many times do you want to punish me for unjustified charges? Was the punishment even commensurate with the alleged charges? I think you will agree with me that we know the answer.
16. Do you agree that some 20 days of outstanding leave entitlement can be robbed from me without my consent? I am very disappointed with you Mr. Rosli Lompoh and your men for taking away my leave entitlement and for drafting the false charges earlier on together with Mr. Hee Len Hee. You accused me of being “absence without leave” and NOT even bothering to find out the truth by carrying out a proper investigation. I am not even comparing my actions with a member of staff from the same company who did not even step into the office for half a year or staff under Hee Len Hee was given oral/written warning. Even if I was wrong, why the double standards? I believe Mr. Hee Len Hee that you know to whom I am referring!
17. Do you find it acceptable in a domestic inquiry whereby the witnesses were not made available by the company to testify in person for the accused employee and had “replied in his email (Mr.Thomas Kuud) to me that he is unavailable” and that Mr. “Rosli Lompoh said that he cannot avail himself because of his role as Acting GM and permanent member of the (Industrial Relations/Employee Relations) disciplinary board? Instead the chairman had suggested that he “can accept written relevant questions that I can pass to them if you have any” Do I have any choice but to go along to produce the questions for them which was apparently answered and I have no chance whatsoever after that to validate their answers? In the light of this understanding, the witnesses I wanted to call to provide testimonies were not made available to me.
Mr. Kandiahpillai, as a Legal Manager and advisor to a SHELL company what are your answers to the 17 questions presented to you and all the members on my letter circulation list below. For the acid test on what is true, just and reasonable, search your conscience and you might then begin to honor the law of natural and fair justice.
It is no good for you Mr. Kandiahpillai and Mr. Rosli Lompoh
to threaten me in writing
because I am now telling my extended family and
my international friends
about your personal and professional ethics and conduct.
it is very bad for a company called Shell
to claim, in the words of Jeroen van der Veer that
“we feel that we are a very professional Group”
what Mr. Lompoh and Mr. Kandiahpillai
are so professional at?
And Jeroen has been openly very concerned
with behavioral aspects
Mr. Rosli Lompoh, I am also very disappointed with you for harassing my wife. You called her to your office to speak to her just because I need her to help me to forward an email to your superiors including Sir Philip Watts. Furthermore you laughed, joked and spoke about my poor geological skills just because I exposed the poor technical and commercial homework made for a multi-billion dollars on the Kinabalu field. My wife had also told me that while she was at your office Rosli, you received the most coincidental phone call from Shell Malaysia Chairman Mr. Jon Chadwick who spoke on the same subject and you told my wife what Jon had said.
I consider what you did without communicating to me directly and the most accurately timed phone call to be an aggravated harassment where you both tried to intimidate, embarrass and instill fear in my wife.
Mr. Rosli Lompoh and Mr. Jon Chadwick, had you been in my situation, would you have liked your lovely wives to be treated as my wife was treated by you? My wife was entrusted to me by her parents to be protected and nurtured and I promised them that I will take very good care her. If I ever find out that have caused her any harm whether deliberately or unintentionally, I will lay out the facts before you and then I will surely come to her rescue. Please share this letter with your wives and ask them for their opinions i.e. how do they feel about the way you treated my beloved wife. Do they think it was appropriate behaviour towards the wife of a long serving Shell employee? Women are very good intuitively and my under better than you how my wife and I feel.
Rosli and Jon, I do not expect you or anyone to behave so badly. It sounds more like Mafia underhand tactics than the actions of senior management from a multinational. Can you both tell me and the world the contents of the conversation with my wife?
In due course, I will be writing to Lord Oxburgh who was and is a renowned geologist himself and a rector of the prestigious Imperial College. I would like to present my Kinabalu case before him and seek his professional view on whether the Kinabalu field development was properly made.
By the way, Lord Oxburgh will be chairing the AGM on 28th June 2004 and as I have said before to you Mr. Kandiahpillai and including Mr. Jeroen van der Veer and Mr. Malcolm Brinded the following:
“I would be grateful for a detailed response
to my email dated 25th May 2004, or
at the very least, an acknowledgment of receipt,
with confirmation that a full response is being prepared.
If I do not receive any response in the next few days
I will make arrangements to be present
at the Shell Transport AGM in London later this month
so that I can raise matters directly with Lord Oxburgh in the Q & A Session.
I am sure Lord Oxburgh and his fellow directors would much prefer
for you to answer my questions.” – email/Letter dated 1st June 2004
Before we forget, Lord Oxburgh will see for himself personally as to whether my geological skills and competencies were poor as what you Rosli had made jokes about me in front of my wife. Furthermore, I will also show the world my consecutive outstanding staff appraisals accorded to me over the years on my team working abilities and technical excellence in geology. You may be please to know that one of my supervisors is now a professor in the chair of geology at Imperial. If that is not enough then I will get another colleague of mine who was supervising PhD students in geology at Oxford University to say something about my geological expertise. Together we have published a geological notional field development plan on another field. Please forgive me Mr. Rosli Lompoh because I did not know that you have been trained in geology as part of your multi-skilling during your cross posting work in Europe. As I have said before;
“That was in 1996
when I highlighted the poor homework done
to a multi-billion dollars project.
I think the time has come
to recommend a full technical and
into the integrity of how that project was mooted.”
The crisis of the Kinabalu Field is a very unfortunate one and had it been done properly, it would not have been necessary to put in good money already made to rectify all the problems associated with subsequent field development and production which I have pointed out. More importantly, we will be increasing the sweep efficiency by adding far more proven volumes to the reserves, the ongoing issue in the reserves downgrades which is going to cause shareholders to lost billions of dollars in class action suit due to misrepresentation and fraud.
Correspondingly, these erosion in asset value may be expressed in downsizing, closure of certain plants, cost cutting in staff development, outsourcing, staff layoffs, etc - all in the name of globalization; so watch out current and would be employees. Mr. Lim Haw Kuang you worked on the Shakalin Project, did you not? And furthermore you are a protégé of Sir Mark Moody Stuart (SHELL/HAKLUYT MI6 SPY FIRM at
http://www.shell2004.com/2004%20Documents/letter_faxed_toMoodyStuart7june.htm. Haw Kuang, what about the four strategic thrusts of on sustainable development, cost cutting, portfolio management and best of all “Sweating the asset” including the asset known as PEOPLE. Are the current legal cases at the Malaysian court is the fallout as a result of those strategic thrusts! Good is not good enough.
Mr. Lim Haw Kuang, I feel very disappointed with the way you handle my Kinabalu case. Before I forget, can you Mr. Lim share with us if you both had communicated that Mr. Larry Chung be the facilitating officer for the domestic inquiry since you are the President for the downstream Oil Products.
Mr. Kandiahpillai, since you identify yourself as the spokesman for the rest of the individuals in the letter circulation list, I expect a response from you and an acknowledgement of receipt would be appreciated. Should Mr Kandiahpillai be unable to deliver and provide the accountability, can you Mr. Richard Wiseman, the General Counsel of Shell International, instruct him to do so failing which I may have to direct future news postings to you.
please find below two testimonies
about my termination case and
a fragment of the written recording
made during the domestic inquiry.
Having read and
understood the contents objectively and
without prejudice to me and/or the Shell,
I urge you to provide me feedback
as to what you think !
From: Dr. John Huong Yiu Tuong
Lot 845, Pujut 4c, Dawai 2, 98100, Miri, Sarawak, East Malaysia
14th May 2004
To: Jeroen Van der Veer Jeroen.email@example.com CMD
Malcolm Brinded Malcolm.firstname.lastname@example.org CMD
Richard Wiseman Richard.Wiseman@shell.com Legal Counsel
Jakob Stausholm Jakob.email@example.com External Auditor
Dominique Gardy Dominique.firstname.lastname@example.org EPA
Jon Chadwick Jon.j.Chadwick@shell.com Chairman/MD
Stephen Pang Stephen.email@example.com HR Manager
Rosli Lompoh Rosli.Lompoh@shell.com Acting HR Manager
Mohidin Sulaiman Mohidin.firstname.lastname@example.org Rosli Lompoh’s subordinate
Thomas Kuud Thomas.email@example.com Capability Manager
Sivapragasan Mailvaganam Sivapragasan.firstname.lastname@example.org HR
T. Kandiahpillai T.Kandiahpillai@shell.com Lawyer
Lily Rosita Kusari Lily.Rosita.email@example.com Lawyer
Max Prins Max.firstname.lastname@example.org Technology Coordinator
Hee Len Hi Lenemail@example.com Ex-General Manager for Technology
Lim Haw Kuang Lim.firstname.lastname@example.org Oil Products
Larry Chung Larry.chung@Shell.com Oil Products
Haji Abu Yusuf Abu.yusuf@Shell.com Chairman for Domestic Inquiry
Othman Marahaban Othman.Marahaban@shell.com Panel Member for Domestic Inquiry
Ko Tong Poh Ko.email@example.com Panel Member for Domestic Inquiry
cc: YB Lee Kim Shin Delivered per hand
Tan Sri Dr. George Chan Delivered per hand
Tan Sri Dato Lee Lam Thye Delivered per hand
Professor Dr. Chandra Muzzafar Delivered per hand
Mr. S M Mohd Idris Delivered per hand
Abg.Razali B.Abg.Abdul Karim Delivered per hand
Joshua Betie Delivered per hand
Does Shell Management in Malaysia promote and support Injustice, Lies, Deception, Cover-up and Conspiracy in the country they operate?
I would like to get
a sincere feedback
for the above question from all those named under the “To:” list because you are somehow either responsible for me as a former dedicated and loyal Shell staff of almost 30 years standing and/or you are involved directly and/or indirectly with my dismissal case and it will make a whole lot of difference to know which side of the fence you are on; whether you embrace disgraceful conduct when benchmarked against the Shell “Statement of General Principles” in relation to the “Triple Bottom Line” plus “Profits and Principles”.
To help you with some food for thoughts, please see the following
two testimonies plus a fragment of the recordings during the Domestic Inquiry
Mr. Joshua Betie
To: Johnhu@tm.net.my. As requested please.
On a date I can’t recall but a few days before the Domestic Inquiry (Dl) involving John Huong commenced, I was approached by John Huong to be his Assistant throughout the whole period of the Domestic Inquiry.
I consented to be his Assistant
and asked John to inform the HR people about it.
Later I was informed by John Huong that the HR people through Mohidin that his request cannot be considered
on the ground that I was a security officer like Larry Chung who was appointed the Facilitating Officer and that due to Operational Reasons I cannot be John’s Assistant
I advised John to argue his case before the Panel Members that
the reason given was not reasonable as there was no Company policy
which barred me from being his Assistantant
as long as that Assistant was a member of Company staff.
Later I was informed by Abang Razali
(the then SM-EP Head of Security)
that the Company would take disciplinary action against me for absent from duty if I were to be John’s Assistant.
This message was transmitted by
a Company HR staff Mohidin.
This to me was a threat
Abang Razali had earlier on
given me the permission to be John’s Assistant.
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 02:05:30 +0000. firstname.lastname@example.org
Mr. Abg. Razali B. Abg. Abdul Karim
John, With reference to your letter dated 20thJune, 2003 here is my response.
I was Head of Security
for Sarawak Shell Berhad (SSB) and Sabah Shell Petroleum Company Limited (SSPC) before my retirement in 5th June, 2003.
On first week of April, 2003, my staff Mr. Joshua Betie approached me in my office seeking permission to assist Dr. John Huong Yiu Tuong in the Domestic inquiry for which
I gave him the permission.
Subsequently, Encik Mohidin Sulaiman (EPH-ERS)
of Human Resource Department approached me alone at my office in SSB and he asked me to be the Company’s Facilitating Officer for the Domestic Inquiry. I told him that the case of Dr. John Huong was related to Human Resource issues and was not a criminal case.
Therefore, I have declined to take the case. Furthermore, I told him that
I have already given Mr. Betie earlier permission to assist Dr. John Huong in the Domestic Inquiry.
After 4.00 p.m on Tuesday, 15th April, 2003, that is the day before the Domestic Inquiry, I received a telephone call from Encik Mohidin Sulaiman instructing me
“to inform Joshua Betie that he cannot assist John Huong at the Domestic Inquiry”.
It was after office hours and since Joshua had gone back and I told me to let the panel of the Domestic Inquiry to inform Joshua the next morning.
Subsequently, Encik Mohidin Sulaiman assured me that
“disciplinary action will be taken against Joshua Betie for his absence from duty in the event that Joshua assist John Huong in the Domestic Inquiry.”
Abg. Razali B. Abg. Abdul Karim
1st August 2003, Kuching
(AE): Accused Employee- John Huong
(CH): CHairman- Abu Yusuf
(CW1): Company Witness 1- Max Prins and is the AE’s supervisor, and
(FO): Facilitating Officer – Larry Chung
AE: Max, after knowing and finding out that I was absent what did you do?
CH: AE, the question have been answered.
AE: Did you Max ever ask or instruct someone to conduct an investigation to inquire into the circumstances why I was allegedly failing to attend the weekly meetings referred to in the charges? If no, Why?
FO: Witnesses says he made enquiries.
AE: Mr. Chairman, my question is on conducting investigation and this is a very specific procedure. Can Max answer the question?
CH: CW1 had answered and he mentions he will tender in emails with regard to investigation
AE: Mr. Chairman, may I ask FO, since he has experience during his police days to tell us how a normal investigation must be conducted?
CH: I don’t think this is relevant to this DI
AE: Mr. Chairman, I believe a proper DI requires a proper investigation to be conducted and as the AE, I would like to know how the investigation was conducted properly alleging that I had failed to attend the meeting referred to in the charges?
CH: Would you like me to answer? (looking at FO)
FO: I am not an authority on investigations. However CW1 inquiring into where about of AE and asking him why he did not attend the meetings as mentioned in the charges is investigation in itself. Getting no answer from AE did not help and possibly impede further investigations. This is evident from the fact that it was difficult to contact AE even though enquiries were made with his wife, messages were left for him (AE) to call CW1 and email correspondences were never replied and that may be the reasons why CW1 did not manage to go further. But to me this is an investigation.
AE: FO, can you share with us what the standard investigation procedure of SSB if the company felt that the employee have disciplinary problems
FO: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to venture into being a witness and I would like to state as the FO, I am doing an independent role and if AE so requires to know more, and if deemed relevant to the charges at hand, he may call his own witness to testify later.
Unfortunately the supervisor, Mr. Prins to be cross-examined by the accused employee did not have an opportunity to answer his questions. All the answers were provided fully by
q Mr. Haji Abu Yusuf, the Chairman for Domestic Inquiry &
q Mr. Larry Chung, the Facilitating Officer for the DI.
Dr. John Huong Yiu Tuong
END OF MAIL/LETTER
Some Further Questions for Shell Malaysia Chairman, Mr Jon Chadwick
Mr.Jon Chadwick, can you please share with us what my courageous Bruneians friends thought (and said) about Shell going global - and what about our Sarawak friends going soon to the "Sarawak Talk".
Jon many of our Peace Corps teachers who taught us 3-4 decades ago have left our country but planted an everlasting good impression of the value systems they instilled in us. When I was in New York, I took the trouble to locate them and was filled with such joyous moments, sharing reminiscences of the good old days at school. I wish I had been given the opportunity to represent our Country at a high level on the International scene and to also make a major positive impact at home, as you have had in your capacity as Chairman of Shell Malaysia. What a pity that you do not appear concerned about your legacy (or reputation) and whether loving and hospitable Malaysians will say in years to come that you have been a great leader, who had helped our community out here in Miri.
You do not seem entirely tuned in to local protocol. For example, I saw you profiled in a Chinese newspaper with a photograph taken with a local dignitary in T-shirt during the last Chinese New Year visit. You posed for a picture with the VIP with your hands on your hip, much like the Texan cowboys would stand, an imagery seen in movies of the Old Wild West. This is a faux pas in our culture; where is your respect for our VIP whom we have elected! Please get your large human resource department personnel through Mr. Rosli Lompoh to help you out with your induction course.
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.
THE MAIN COURSE
Mr. Kandiahpillai, I hope you can help all of us to facilitate the resolution to this conflict in some form before the 22nd of June 2004. Only the appetizer has been served to this point and I will have a truce with you till the 22nd June. If you are unwilling to respond like gentlemen and enter into a constructive dialogue on a “without prejudice” basis, then I will reluctantly serve the main course of the menu – it will be sizzling hot and probably rather indigestible. The content of my earlier letter “Without Prejudice” is clear and self-explanatory. http://www.shell2004.com/2004%20Documents/shell_whistleblower_no_2.htm
I only hope you will be empathetic and
as I have said all along that
instead of the on-going acrimony for the case.
Again, I invite you to share with me your views especially your own experiences with Shell.
Dr. John Huong Yiu Tuong
16th June 2004.