STATEMENT BY ALFRED DONOVAN REGARDING SHELL'S THREAT TO HAVE SHELL WHISTLEBLOWER DR JOHN HUONG IMPRISONED, SUNDAY 11 JULY 2004.
Preface: It is important to note that the latest threat by Royal Dutch Shell, this time to seek committal proceedings against the Defendant Dr John Huong, is entirely in relation to this website, Shell2004.com which is not in the jurisdiction of the High Court of Malaya and over which Dr Huong has no legal control whatsoever.
A High Court WRIT and associated court documents have been deleted from this website because of a threat made by Royal Dutch Shell to institute "committal proceedings" against Shell Whistleblower Dr John Huong, the former Shell geologist of almost 30 years standing whom Shell is determined to silence at all costs because he is in possession of information they self-evidently intend to keep secret (probably in relation to the current oil reserves scandal in which billions of dollars are at stake).
Shell's latest draconian threat was contained in a letter dated 6 July 2004 to Dr Huong from the Lawyers acting for the EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies which had obtained an injunction in relation to web pages which were previously posted on Shell2004.com. My name is mentioned in the letter several times, never as "Mr" Donovan, always just "Donovan". This seems a grossly disrespectful way to refer to an 87 year old pensioner. The letter from Shell's arrogant, bullying and disrespectful solicitors, T H LIEW & PARTNERS, also contains an implied threat against me. It says: "The conduct of Donovan is of no concern to our clients, at the present moment".
I posted the Writ and associated High Court papers because Malaysian law is based on English law and in England such documents are in the public domain immediately they are issued. Furthermore my website is not in the jurisdiction of the High Court of Malaya. I deleted the original postings which were the subject of the injunction because of the previous threats made by Shell to Dr Huong. Knowing this, they have now blackmailed him again to apply pressure on me to also remove the High Court papers from the website. I do not know any other appropriate term to use. Shell's knows that I am the owner and publisher of the website. So without instituting legal proceedings against me or my website host (in which case the website will switch to mirror image sites) they are powerless to influence the content. Hence the blackmail tactics used against Dr Huong. It boils down to Shell cold-bloodedly frightening a family man into pressurising me into deleting the relevant information on MY website - or otherwise we will have you put in prison Dr Huong.
The official explanation for these terror tactics is because of forthright but truthful comments Dr Huong has made about Royal Dutch Shell which Shell claims has damaged its reputation. What reputation? Are they living in Cloud Cuckoo Land? Shell's reputation has already been shattered by the mendacious blundering actions of Shell's hopelessly incompetent management. Furthermore, similar forthright comments were in the public domain years before Dr Huongs conscience led him to speak out, thereby incurring the wrath of his management - the action which resulted in his eventual dismissal. Dr Huong made the mistake of believing that Shell really meant what it said in its Statement of General Business Principles: honesty, openness and integrity in all of its dealings.
Since I have the highest regard for Dr Huong I have had no option on both occasions but to give in to Shell's repeated blackmail. All of this provides further evidence that Shell management is indeed malicious, ruthless and downright evil on occasion, precisely as I have contended for several years.
I coincidentally sent a fax on 9 July 04 to His Excellency Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations seeking his urgent intervention in this matter on the grounds that the Royal Dutch Shell Group used the court order/injunction to also remove from the relevant web pages, Dr Huongs extensive extracts from the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights.
It is therefore interesting to note the following statement: -
“More important, we must demonstrate we really do help make the world better. That includes not just wealth creation, but ensuring that we set standards of civilised behaviour in and around our own operations, demonstrating and expressing support for fundamental human rights.”
It is an extract from an essay by Sir Mark Moody-Stuart on 14 February 2000 in his then capacity as Chairman of Committee of Managing Directors of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group. He remains a director of Shell Transport and Trading Company plc. More utter hypocrisy. Shell pretends on the one hand to support fundamental human rights and on the other, obtains a High Court injunction to remove from Dr Huongs pages on this website important extracts from the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights. Why, because they consisted of Articles 1, 5, 12, 19 and 23 dealing with (a) freedom of opinion and expression; (b) the acknowledgement that all human beings are endowed with a conscience and (C) are also entitled to just and favourable conditions of work. Shell has apparently decided that these ideals do not apply to Dr John Huong. When will Shell learn that it is deeds not words (empty PR rhetoric) which really count?
I made it clear to His Excellency Kofi Annan that I have no authority or brief to speak on behalf of Dr Huong.Alfred Donovan 11 July 04