Disclaimer:

1. Media Conference: SingTel’s appeal against KPPU decision 4 January 2008 Disclaimer: No representation or warranty, either express or implied, is provided in relation to the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information contained in these presentation materials. Any opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice. Neither SingTel nor any of its affiliates, nor any of SingTel's or any of its affiliates, directors, employees or agents accepts any liability for any loss or damage arising out of the use of all or any part of these materials.

2. KPPU decision is wrong • Decision violated Rule of Law in Indonesia and basic principle of Legal Certainty • Decision contained many mistakes, misinterpretations and misapplications of the provisions of the Law

3. Decision violated Rule of Law in Indonesia No jurisdiction over SingTel and SingTel Mobile • SingTel and SingTel Mobile not incorporated or domiciled in Indonesia • SingTel and SingTel Mobile have their places of business in Singapore KPPU applied so-called "Single Economic Entity" Doctrine to claim jurisdiction • Doctrine not recognised under Indonesian Law • No mention or explanation of this Doctrine in Anti-Monopoly Law or other relevant regulations • This is a clear violation of the Rule of Law

4. No clear evidence of Article 27(a) breach . KPPU failed to prove and provide clear evidence that SingTel and SingTel Mobile have violated this provision . • Article 27(a) is very clear – it requires: • a majority share ownership • in two or more companies • that engage in the same business activities within the same market . SingTel does not own shares in any telecommunication company in Indonesia SingTel Mobile only owns 35% interest in Telkomsel; PT Telkom owns other 65% SingTel Mobile by any definition is only a Minority Shareholder in Telkomsel . .

5. Failure to exercise Due Process of Law • SingTel and SingTel Mobile named as reported parties when the investigation had already proceeded for a couple of months • KPPU repeatedly failed to comply with strict timeline imposed by the Law SingTel and SingTel Mobile have submitted formal Appeal to the Central Jakarta District Court

6. Case is fundamentally flawed No jurisdiction over SingTel and SingTel Mobile • Not incorporated or domiciled in Indonesia • Do not conduct business activities in Indonesia • Shareholding does not constitute "business activities" - Prof Hikmahanto & Dr Ratnawati

7. KPPU charge fails at first hurdle Article 27(a) does not apply • SingTel does not own any shares in any company • SingTel Mobile does not own majority shares in two or more companies • SingTel Mobile owns minority shares in only one company

8. KPPU ignored language of law Control • This concept does not appear in Article 27(a) at all • Article 27(a) is clearly worded and its clear meaning must be respected • KPPU disregarded the fact that PT Telkom is the majority shareholder with a controlling interest in Telkomsel Sanctions • No basis to order divesture for breach of Article 27(a) or to interfere with ordinary shareholder rights

9. Parties not accorded due process rights • Unjust procedures • Not informed of allegations against SingTel or SingTel Mobile • KPPU asked questions irrelevant to Article 27(a) • SingTel and SingTel Mobile not asked to participate in preliminary examination • SingTel and SingTel Mobile denied access to parts of KPPU files during preliminary examination • KPPU head made prejudicial statements to the press

10. SingTel Mobile investment complied with law • SingTel Mobile’s acquisition of shares in Telkomsel • All requisite regulatory approvals were sought from the Indonesian government • SingTel Mobile has acted in accordance with the law … • … in its dealings with PT Telkom, the majority stakeholder in Telkomsel • … in its dealings with the Board of Commissioners and Board of Directors, which are majority-controlled by PT Telkom

11. Open and very competitive mobile market in Indonesia • Every carrier competes on a level playing field • Low entry barriers to new competitors • New carriers have entered; market concentration below average of comparable countries and falling • Consumers can switch carriers at low cost because pre-paid services predominate • Carriers have committed resources to the Indonesian market • Significant growth in base stations • Increased investment in marketing and customer acquisition

12. Abundance of choice for consumers • Prices are low and falling • ITU, World Bank data • Telkomsel ARPM (average revenue per minute) fell by 32% from 2003-2006, not even accounting for inflation; drop was faster after SingTel Mobile became a shareholder of Telkomsel • Network coverage has increased • Mobile service available to virtually anyone, anywhere • Consumers make informed choices from rich menus of service packages, particularly for low-end services • Result: Indonesian churn rate among highest in the world

13. Consumer surplus in Indonesia has increased • KPPU method incorrectly assumes that prices are higher in Indonesia than in comparable countries • Competition in Indonesian mobile markets increased consumer surplus by approximately Rp. 17 trillion (US$1.8B) between 2002-2006

14. Cellular Network Coverage - 2002 Source: SingTel

15. Cellular Network Coverage - 2007 100% coverage of sub-districts in Java, Bali and Sumatra Source: SingTel