Rebuttal on Moores Rowland's (Rowland) letter dated August 22, 2002

L&L disagrees each of the 4 disagreement statements that Rowland made in the
letter addressed to Securities and Exchange Commission, US dated August 22, 2
002. These information contained in the 4 disagreement statements are either
misleading, un-logic. It is our belief; an experienced auditor can grasp
these 4 issues and resolved them in a matter of one hour. Due to Rowland's
apparent lack of US accounting knowledge, its in-experienced staff has
dragged these matters for so many months. Despite of our repeated explanation
and provide the necessary information, no one in Rowland's firm was able to
grasp the issues and resolve them. Consequently, an audit report was never
issued. Our rebuttals are as follows:

Rowland's Disagreement Statement #1)Re: Group Structure.

Our response: L&L consists of two US (Nevada incorporated) companies, a
British Virgin Island (BVI) company and a Hong Kong company. We had
explained to Rowland's auditors that in the United States of American there
is a privacy issue. There is neither a requirement of having share
certificates printed nor a need to disclose all the name of shareholders in
a private company. If Rowland Hong Kong firm has more US corporate laws
knowledge, they will answer the comment themselves.

Rowland's Disagreement Statement #2) Re: Intangible Asset.

Our response: For your information, this subject has been discussed with
other CPA and they tend to accept in general. Rowland's judgment is only
based on the amount of its experience on this subject. This again indicates
different judgment on this matter.

Rowland's Disagreement Statement #3) Re: Investment In account.

Our response: We believe Rowland's comment demonstrated, it apparently lacks
of US accounting knowledge. Look at Rowland's correspondence on this
technical issue; it keeps on saying it has discussed the subject with its US
affiliate. But Rowland has never spoken out on what US accounting standards
it is rely on. Instead, Rowland's partner just dancing around saying they
are aware of it (accounting principles). If Rowland do not know the US
technical subject, all we see is they are beating around the brushes. Look
again, what Rowland said in the statement, they said "we have reservation
on the amount, ...we have not come to any conclusion" after 5 months of
this small audit. For your information, the subject "SAB97", which Rowland's
repeatedly citing (see Attachment 1), has been obsolete for one (1) year.

Rowland's Disagreement Statement #4) Re: Collectibility of outstanding
accounts receivable.

Our response: Again, this is a judgment issue. L&L management made its
judgment and proposed a reserve. It is expected that Rowland, as auditor,
are free to modify on this subject.  If Rowland have a different judgment on
this subject, just modify the amount of provisions and disclose it on its
audit report. This is a normal American practice. Unfortunately, Rowland
simply does not want to make a judgment. It is apparent that Rowland kept on
playing a "Cat and Mouse" game, to drag the audit for 5 months.  The only
justification for Rowland is that it try to charge L&L with more fees.