I don't mean to engage in a pissing contest but if scaling back...

I don't mean to engage in a pissing contest but if scaling back is required then the fairest way would be pro-rata. If I was an Aussie and had 10,000 shares I would apply for 30,000 to try it on, as a kiwi I I need to estimate how much I will get to avoid buying too many Aussie $ (although I did it before this takeover news came out so am stuffed).
Let's say that the top 100 shareholders own 80% of the company, their maximum application is 30,000 each shares leaving 17 million shares so they get screwed.
On the other hand there will be thousands of small shareholders applying, they own only 20% of the company but there's 3.8 % available to them which is approximately enough to compensate for the 20% dilutionary impact of the offer.
Let's say there's 4000 small shareholders, then you could split it equally and give them 4 or 5000 shares each as you say nightmarz.
Just running these numbers I realize I probably won't get 30,000 maybe just enough to maintain my proportional holding - say 15,000. If you have 10,000 then a scaling back to 2,000 would be equivalent and to my mind fair, just enough to maintain your holding.
That's generally how these things roll.
I don't understand why people sell into capital raisings, I still have never met one I didn't like - that wasn't in the long term very profitable. Generally its a great time to buy as theres a lot if forced selling going on.
All this highlights how neither management or the Chinese govt did me any favours. If they had waited till the end of the offer period I would have a full allocation and offering only 10m shares to existing holders was a real slap in the face. I much prefer the offers which no-one takes up and I get 25% extra leftovers for free.