Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA
Tel: +44 020 7934 3080 Fax: +44 20 7934 5140 Mobile: +44 7768 993 600
Email: jyoti.munsiff@shell.com
Jyoti Munsiff,
Congratulations on your appointment as Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer for Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
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?
I am also perplexed by the fact that Shell apparently allows Mr. Alfred Donovan to publish negative commentary about Shell on his website unhindered while I have been sued for articles posted by him on his website under my name? Mr. Donovan has also published an extract from a legal submission purportedly made by Shell International to the World Intellectual Property Organisation in which Shell stated that it supports the right of Mr. Alfred Donovan to criticise Shell on his website. I have also read the November 2005 email to Alfred Donovan from Shell International General Counsel Mr. Richard Wiseman in which Mr Wiseman confirms how tolerant Shell is of Mr. Donovan’s postings on his website. I trust that you can appreciate why I am so puzzled at the apparent disparity in treatment. I am sure there must be a logical explanation?
It therefore seems appropriate to ask you in your new capacity whether the relevant postings by Mr. Donovan i.e. the claimed extract from Shell’s submission to the WIPO and the November 2005 email from Mr. Wiseman are genuine? Surely they must be false??? Why would Shell encourage Mr. Donovan to indulge in his rights to freedom of expression while simultaneously adopting a totally different approach towards me? 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.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Dr. John Huong
Note: This letter will also be copied to Mr. Alfred
Donovan because his name was also mentioned.