gohgate, page-5

RB,

I appreciate that your efforts are great, BUT it has been shown that John won't actually answer any tough questions.

Here's my observation (followed by a question or two).

I see this whole Gohgate thing in this way;

1) Mr Thee Woon Goh, an executive and director of a subsidiary, exercised options in the week before 2 shareholders sought the appointment of ADDITIONAL independent directors. This appointment would have brought more transparency. Mr Goh did not pay for the shares as is required by the exercise of options and this was allowed/sanctioned by the board. The board fought tooth and nail to avoid transparency and allowed Mr Goh's vote despite him not paying for the shares. Mr Goh is said to be paying for these shares, with no interest being charged on the debt.

2) Shareholders' money is used to pay exhorbitant salaries with no real profit EVER.

3) Those salaries are used to loan to the company, paying 12%, while shareholders almost always lose money and get no dividends, EVER.

4) The loans are used to pay the $200k+ salary of Mr Thee Woon Goh.

5) Mr Goh uses his salary to pay for the options exercised.

6) goto step 2)

Can John explain how this is wrong? I don't want to hear his spin, just explain how the above is wrong.

Here's another few obvious questions...

Why is Mr Goh not being charged 12% interest like us?

Why don't the directors lend to Mr Goh, rather than the company, at 12% and let him settle with the company?

Given that the directors allowed the whole Gohgate fiasco to exist, isn't it their responsibility to sort it out, and sooner rather than later?