MR PRINSLOO
I submit, Chairperson, that as far as the application for amendment is concerned, that it appears very clearly from the top portion of page 5 that in reality there is no misunderstanding as far as the correct interpretation of the application as a whole.   I want to emphasise the sentence that I've quoted, that it had to have followed logically that that would have been the answer, if there was no interpretation problem, then the answer in view of what the applicant had said at the top of page 5 must, the answer must have been yes, that is the answer now to 11(a), there can be no other logical conclusion, because these two things, as they stand, are contradictory and in view of this it can have no prejudicial consequences for any interested parties if this amendment is granted.   It is actually self-evident.