Wujud satu bukti baru mengenai kematian Teoh Beng Hock. Dikatakan, hanya Tan Boon Hwa sahaja yang tahu perkara ini.
Sekurang-kurangnya dua blog memaparkan misteri baru ini iaitu wujudnya satu pertengkaran di antara Tan Boon Hwa dan mendiang di tandas, tingkat 14, Pejabat SPRM, Plaza Masalam, selepas jam 3.45 pagi, kira-kira empat hingga lima jam sebelum mendiang ditemui mati.
Fakta ini dikatakan diketahui oleh peguam Gobind Singh Deo apabila Tan datang menemuinya, untuk mendapat nasihat guaman, sebaik sahaja berlakunya tragedi kematian mendiang.
Atas faktor itu, Gobind Singh Deo, peguam keluarga mendiang, merangkap peguam DAP telah menasihatkan Tan Boon Hwa untuk membuat laporan polis dan memfailkan saman terhadap Suruhanjaya Penyiasatan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM), dengan tujuan untuk melindungi bukti ini terbongkar.
Kerana itu Tan dikatakan dengan sengaja mencipta arus memburuk-buruk SPRM menggunakan media dengan motif supaya masyarakat keliru dan memfokuskan kepada SPRM, bukannya fokus kepadanya sebagai menjadi suspek terakhir berjumpa dengan mendiang.
Berikutan itu, blog anti-Anwar - ntanwar dan theunspinners - menyebut bahawa kunci jawapan adalah di tangan Tan. Blog ntanwar mengemukakan pertanyaan dan jawapan sejujur-jujurnya kepada Tan - saksi terakhir yang mengaku berjumpa dengan Teoh Beng Hock, pukul 6.30 pagi - sesudah subuh - bahawa :
"Benarkah anda (Tan Boon Hwa) telah memarahi dan bertengkar dengan Teoh Beng Hock di tandas, tingkat 14, pejabat SPRM, Plaza Masalam, selepas jam 3.45 pagi, pada 16 Julai 2009"
Kenapa pertanyaan ini dibuat?
Ini kerana terdapat seorang saksi yang telah nampak dan mendengar pertengkaran mereka berdua pada masa dan tarikh yang disebutkan di atas. Saksi tersebut adalah salah seorang pegawai SPRM yang pada masa dan tarikh tersebut, kebetulan juga mahu pergi ke tandas dan mendengar percakapan yang diucapkan dalam bahasa Cina.
Ini merupakan maklumat yang shahih yang diperolehi daripada sumber-sumber yang tidak boleh diberitahu di sini. Kita mahu Tan Boon Hwa lebih bertanggungjawab dan memberitahu perkara sebenar kepada masyarakat awam berkaitan dengan maklumat ini.
Ikuti susur galur kepada pendedahan terbaru ini.
Latar belakang kejadian
Terdapat 4 orang saksi yang telah dipanggil oleh SPRM pada 15 Julai. Pertama bernama Haron, kedua; Teoh Beng Hock, ketiga; Tan Boon Hwa dan keempat Lee Wye Wing.
Haron tamat sesi soalsiasat pada jam 1 pagi (16 Julai) dan dibenarkan pulang. Saksi tersebut telah pulang ke rumahnya.
Tan Boon Hwa masuk ke pejabat SPRM pada jam 8.30 malam, 15 Julai dan tamat soal siasat jam 1.30 pagi (16 Julai) serta dibenarkan pulang. Pegawai SPRM menawarkan diri untuk menghantar Tan pulang ke rumahnya (di Kajang), tetapi Tan menolak tawaran itu dan meminta kebenaran untuk bermalam di SPRM.
Lee Wye Wing masuk ke pejabat SPRM untuk sesi soal siasat pada jam 2.00 pagi (16 Julai) dan tamat sesi soal siasat pada jam 5.00 pagi (16 Julai). Meskipun telah tamat sesi soal jawab pada jam 5.00 pagi dan dibenarkan pulang, Lee minta untuk berehat di bangunan SPRM serta dilaporkan meninggalkan bangunan SPRM kira-kira jam 9 pagi, 16 Julai.
Teoh Beng Hock masuk ke pejabat SPRM pada jam 5.00 petang, 15 Julai dan tamat sesi soal jawab pada jam 3.45 pagi, 16 Julai.
Soalan untuk Tan Boon Hwa :
1. Kenapa selepas jam 2.00 pagi, 16 Julai, meskipun pegawai SPRM menawarkan diri untuk dihantar pulang, tetapi anda menolak, malahan anda meminta izin untuk bermalam di SPRM dan bersedia menunggu sesi kedua soal siasat pada jam 11 pagi, 16 Julai ?
2. Betulkah anda telah berjanji dengan pegawai SPRM bahawa anda akan membawa beberapa dokumen sokongan kepada SPRM semasa sesi kedua soal siasat, pada jam 11 pagi, 16 Julai. Anda dilaporkan telah menelefon isteri anda dan meminta membawa beberapa dokumen dibawa kepada anda untuk diserahkan kepada pegawai SPRM. Namun sehingga selesai soal jawab sesi kedua, pada jam 1.30 tengahari (16 Julai), anda gagal memberikan dokumen sepertimana yang dijanjikan ?
3. Betulkah selepas jam 3.45 pagi, 16 Julai, anda mengekori Teoh Beng Hock ke tandas, SPRM dan anda telah bertanya apakah soalan yang telah ditanya oleh pegawai SPRM kepada Teoh. Anda dilaporkan telah memarahi Teoh dan bertengar dengannya dalam tandas tersebut. Dilaporkan seorang saksi telah nampak dan menyaksikan pertangkaran anda itu ?
4. Apa yang telah anda lakukan di antara jam 3.45 pagi (16 Julai) hingga jam 10.59 pagi (16 Julai) ketika anda dibebaskan daripada sesi soal jawab, hingga anda masuk semula untuk sesi soal jawab kedua pada jam 11.00 pagi hingga 1.30 tengahari, 16 Julai ?
5. Betulkah selepas pertengkaran dengan Teoh, anda telah menelefon beberapa orang lain, selain daripada isteri anda ?
Kematian Teoh
Mendiang Teoh ditemui mati di koridor luar Tingkat 5, Plaza Masalam pada jam 1.30 tengahari, 16 Julai. Tetapi berita kematian telah tersebar di internet, jam 11 pagi, 16 Julai. Bermakna terdapat dua versi masa mayat dijumpai iaitu pada jam 11 pagi dan jam 1.30 tengahari
Menurut laporan polis, mendiang mungkin mati sekitar 4-5 jam sebelum ditemui. Sekiranya ditemui jam 1.30 tengahari, bermakna mendiang mati sekitar jam 8.30 pagi atau 9.30 pagi, 16 Julai.
Sekiranya berdasarkan sebaran internet, mayat dijumpai pada jam 11 pagi, bermakna mendiang mati sekitar jam 6.00 pagi atau 7.00 pagi, 16 Julai.
Mayat mendiang ditemui di koridor luar, Tingkat 5, Plaza Masalam. Koridor itu milik syarikat TUAH TANKER SDN BERHAD. Di bawah koridor tingkat 5 itu adalah OLD TOWN WHITE Coffee.
Keterangan Tan Boon Hwa tentang pertemuan dengan Teoh
Tan Boon Hwa telah memberitahu media, bahawa dia berjumpa dengan Teoh selepas Subuh/ sekitar 6.15 pagi, 16 Julai, di pantri, dekat tandas, Tingkat 14 pejabat SPRM. Tan berkata dia jumpa Teoh dan menegur, tetapi hanya menjawab 'uhm' dan nampak keletihan. Selepas itu Tan berkata, dia masuk tandas, apabila keluar tandas, dia dapati, Teoh telah tiada di tempat itu.
Itu kata Tan. Pertama, dia mengakui sebagai saksi terakhir berjumpa mendiang, sekitar jam 6.15 pagi, 16 Julai, di pantry, dekat tandas. Adakah Tan bercakap benar ?
Bagaimana pula dengan saksi yang nampak Tan dan Teoh bertengkar di tandas, bangunan SPRM selepas jam 3.45 pagi, 16 Julai?
Siapa cakap benar, saksi yang nampak Tan dan Teoh bertengkar di tandas, selepas jam 3.45 pagi atau hanya keterangan Tan yang mendakwa hanya berjumpa di tandas, pada jam 6.15 pagi, 16 Julai ?
ntanwar mencabar Gobind Singh Deo, membangkitkan soalan "benarkah wujud pertengkaran Tan-Teoh, di tandas, selepas jam 3.45 pagi, 16 Julai" kepada salah seorang pegawai SPRM yang menjadi saksi kepada insiden itu.
Itupun kalau Gobind berminat untuk mencari punca sebenar kematian, kalau Gobind juga berniat untuk melindungi, atau mahu menyalahkan pihak lain, dia akan menyekat soalan ini dikeluarkan dalam inkues nanti.
Didoakan semoga keluarga Teoh menemui jawapan sebenar kematian anaknya itu.
Siapa saksi lihat pertengkaran Tan-Teoh di tandas ? (Unspinners)
Selepas, mendiang Teoh, tamat sesi soal siasatnya, pada jam 3.45 pagi, 16 Julai, dia telah pergi ke tandas. Tan Boon Hwa yang sudah lama menunggu mendiang, turut sama mengekorinya ke tandas pejabat SPRM (Tingkat 14, Plaza Masalam).
Di dalam tandas itu, Tan Boon Hwa telah menanyakan kepada mendiang apakah soalan-soalan yang diajukan oleh pegawai SPRM kepadanya. Mendiang menjawab secara jujur soalan-soalan yang ditanya dan jawapan-jawapan yang telah diberikan olehnya. Mendengar jawapan itu, Tan tidak berpuas hati dan meninggikan suara serta mengancam mendiang kerana telah menjadi tali barut SPRM untuk menjatuhkan bos-bos mereka (dua exco DAP; Ronnie Liu & Ean Yong)
Makian dan ancaman Tan Boon Hwa kepada mendiang telah disaksikan oleh seorang pegawai SPRM bernama Bulkini yang ketika itu juga berada di tandas.
Bulkini adalah Penolong Penguasa SPRM yang boleh berbahasa Cina kerana sebelum ini telah berkhidmat khusus untuk komuniti Cina selama 14 tahun (dahulunya dikenali sebagai BPR).
Bulkini adalah pegawai penyiasat SPRM Putrajaya, dipinjamkan buat sementara ke pejabat SPRM Selangor untuk menyiasat kes penyelewengan dua exco DAP Selangor.
Pada 15 Julai 2009, Bulkini telah menjadi pegawai penyiasat kepada Tan Boon Hwa dari jam 8.30 malam, 15 Julai hingga 1.30 pagi, 16 Julai. Selepas tamat sesi soal siasat Bulkini membenarkan Tan Boon Hwa pulang ke rumahnya dan diminta hadir semula pada jam 11.00 pagi, 16 Julai untuk menyambung keterangan. Namun Tan Boon Hwa enggan pulang sebaliknya mengambil keputusan untuk berada di pejabat SPRM.
Melihat keanehan Tan Boon Hwa, menolak pelawaan untuk pulang, Bulkini mula mengsyaki sesuatu. Dalam hatinya, terbetik apakah yang ditunggu oleh saksi itu. Oleh itu Bulkini telah memantau pergerakan saksinya dari kejauhan.
Selepas mendiang Teoh tamat sesi soal siasatnya, jam 3.45 pagi (16 Julai), dia terus ke tandas dan pergerakannya turut diekori oleh Tan Boon Hwa. Melihat kejadian aneh itu, Bulkini juga turut mengekori saksinya ke tandas untuk mengetahui apa yang mereka lakukan..
Sekarang BULKINI, pegawai SPRM telah menjadi saksi pertengkaran Tan dan mendiang di tandas. Pegawai itu juga telah mendengar satu persatu topik perbalahan mereka pada pagi itu.
Bermakna Tan Boon Hwa bercakap bohong dan menyembunyikan fakta sebenar bahawa dia dan mendiang bertengkar di tandas.
Tan Boon Hwa juga menyembunyikan fakta bahawa dia pernah memberi kata-kata ancaman kepada mendiang kerana mendiang telah terlepas cakap dan sanggup menjadi tali barut SPRM.
Ada satu lagi isu lain yang sedang berlegar, benarkah Tan Boon Hwa memarahi mendiang dan terlepas cakap mengatakan anak yang dikandung tunangnya bukan anak mendiang, tetapi anak orang lain?
Friday, August 21, 2009
RM66 JUTA, BANYAK TUUU…
Untuk makluman sahaja. Tidak berani komen. Ini urusan peribadi seseorang.
Mungkin orang lain pun ada kes serupa.
Oleh kerana keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur itu membabitkan tokoh politik, ia menjadi suatu perkara yang menjadi minat dan tarikan umum.
Mahkamah berkenaan hari ini memerintahkan Menteri Besar Selangor, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim membayar RM66 juta (AS$18.521 juta) kepada Bank Islam bagi pinjaman yang diambilnya pada tahun 2001 untuk membeli saham Guthrie Bhd.
Ia merupakan penghakiman ringkas (penghakiman yang dibuat tanpa perkara itu didengar dalam perbicaraan penuh) oleh Hakim Rohana Yusof dalam kamarnya.
Beliau bagaimanapun membenarkan penangguhan hukuman tersebut, sementara menunggu rayuan dibuat.
Ini bermakna Khalid tidak perlu membayar segera jumlah tersebut sehinggalah selesai semua proses rayuan.
Peguam Malik Imtiar Sarwar yang mewakili Khalid berkata, rayuan akan difailkan kerana beliau merasakan perkara itu harus didengar dalam perbicaraan penuh.
"Kita akan fail permohonan untuk penangguhan hukuman awal minggu depan," katanya.
Bank Islam diwakili oleh peguam Tommy Thomas. Bank menyaman Khalid pada 27 Mei 2007 kerana didakwa melanggar kontraknya kerana gagal membayar balik pinjaman AS$18.521 juta.
Rohana juga menetapkan 16 September untuk sebutan permohonan penangguhan hukuman serta untuk menetapkan tarikh bagi dakwaan balas Khalid.
Khalid telah memfailkan saman balas terhadap bank tersebut pada 18 Mei 2008.
Mungkin orang lain pun ada kes serupa.
Oleh kerana keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur itu membabitkan tokoh politik, ia menjadi suatu perkara yang menjadi minat dan tarikan umum.
Mahkamah berkenaan hari ini memerintahkan Menteri Besar Selangor, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim membayar RM66 juta (AS$18.521 juta) kepada Bank Islam bagi pinjaman yang diambilnya pada tahun 2001 untuk membeli saham Guthrie Bhd.
Ia merupakan penghakiman ringkas (penghakiman yang dibuat tanpa perkara itu didengar dalam perbicaraan penuh) oleh Hakim Rohana Yusof dalam kamarnya.
Beliau bagaimanapun membenarkan penangguhan hukuman tersebut, sementara menunggu rayuan dibuat.
Ini bermakna Khalid tidak perlu membayar segera jumlah tersebut sehinggalah selesai semua proses rayuan.
Peguam Malik Imtiar Sarwar yang mewakili Khalid berkata, rayuan akan difailkan kerana beliau merasakan perkara itu harus didengar dalam perbicaraan penuh.
"Kita akan fail permohonan untuk penangguhan hukuman awal minggu depan," katanya.
Bank Islam diwakili oleh peguam Tommy Thomas. Bank menyaman Khalid pada 27 Mei 2007 kerana didakwa melanggar kontraknya kerana gagal membayar balik pinjaman AS$18.521 juta.
Rohana juga menetapkan 16 September untuk sebutan permohonan penangguhan hukuman serta untuk menetapkan tarikh bagi dakwaan balas Khalid.
Khalid telah memfailkan saman balas terhadap bank tersebut pada 18 Mei 2008.
KENAPA MAHFUZ DIAM MENGENAI PENIPUAN CUKAI IIIT?
Menarik membaca tulisan Dr Novandri Hasan Basri mengenai cabarannya supaya Datuk Mahfuz Omar mendedahkan kes ‘tax fraud’ atau penipuan cukai oleh International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT)?
Apa kena mengena IIIT dengan PAS dan Mahfuz? Memang tidak ada kena mengena secara terus tetapi Mahfuz tidak adil apabila hanya sibuk mengenai calon pilihan raya kecil Permatang Pasir tetapi enggan membuat pendedahan terhadap anak pemimpin pakatan pembangkang.
Menurut Dr Novandri, jika parti PAS benar-benar mahukan calon dan parti Pakatan Rakyat bersih, beliau mencabar Mahfuz Omar untuk membuka mulut beliau dan berdepan dengan Anwar Ibrahim dan menanyakan beliau satu 'tax fraud' oleh IIIT sebagai bentuk sumbangan kepada Nurul Izzah, anak Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim oleh al-Haramian foundation?
Ini kerana: Ibrahim and his family were also the beneficiaries of an apparent tax fraud perpetrated by IIIT. The same tax filings showing a donation to the al-Haramian foundation show $92,200 in contributions to Ibrahim’s daughter, Nurul Izzah?
IIITviolated U.S. law when it wrote “none” under “Donee’s relationship” when listing donations to Ibrahim’s daughter. The group would have lost its tax-exempt status had it been known that it was sending money to the family member of a director.
Ibrahim never disavowed this act when given the chance and even stated explicitly that these contributions were made for the education of his six children…
Untuk lebih jelas, baca petikan ini:
Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced Terror By: Ilan Weinglass
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, January 12, 2006
Johns Hopkins University is demonstrating a disturbing pattern of awarding fellowships to Islamists with an avowedly anti-Western agenda. Mustafa El Khalfi, the Moroccan Islamist who was recently awarded a fellowship at the university’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), is not the first. In March of 2005, SAIS granted a visiting fellowship to Anwar Ibrahim, a terror-supporting Malaysian Islamist whose Virginia-based organization apparently committed tax fraud in his benefit.
On March 30, 2005, SAIS announced that Ibrahim, the former deputy prime minister of Malaysia, was joining the university’s Foreign Policy Institute, as a visiting scholar. Ibrahim was to “present seminars on contemporary Southeast Asian politics, economic reform, Islam and democracy…[and] join in SAIS activities.”
The announcement by SAIS said that Ibrahim would also be working on “a project examining democratization in the Muslim world.” While SAIS described him “as a strong advocate for civil society, economic liberalization, moderate Islam and democratic governance,” publicly available evidence shows the opposite. A quick glance at his website reveals a prominently featured photo of Ibrahim together with Yusuf Qaradawi, a leading Islamist scholar who is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and supports HAMAS, and who recently issued a fatwa calling for the Islamic conquest of Europe.
Anwar Ibrahim is a founder and director of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a think tank in Virginia that has alleged links to terrorism. IIIT’s 2003 tax-exempt IRS filing lists a $720 donation to the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation of Ashland, Oregon, which was designated as a terrorist funding organization by the U.S. government in 2004. Among the Treasury Department’s findings were that the Oregon branch of al-Haramain engaged in tax fraud, money laundering, supporting Chechen mujahideen affiliated with al Qaeda, and had “direct links between the U.S. branch and Usama bin Laden.” In fact, many of al – Haramain’s offices around the world were closed for supporting terrorism.
There is more evidence of IIIT’s links to terrorism. A few examples: according to court documents, in the early 1990s IIIT donated at least $50,000 to a think tank run by Sami al-Arian, the World Islamic and Study Enterprise (WISE), that served as a front group for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. IIIT is also named as a defendant in two class-action lawsuits brought by victims of the 9/11 attacks.
One alleges that IIIT received the bulk of its operating expenses from the SAAR network, whose component groups are accused in another class-action suit of being “fronts for the sponsor of al Qaeda and international terror.” The same suit lists IIIT as well as every officer of IIIT besides Anwar Ibrahim as a supporter of the SAAR network. This public information was available to SAIS, yet the school extended a fellowship to Ibrahim.
Ibrahim, along with three other IIIT directors, is also a trustee of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). According to congressional testimony of testimony of Jonathan Winer, former Deputy Secretary of State for International Law Enforcement, in October 2002 WAMY made Hamas leader Khalid Mishal an “honored guest” at a conference held in Riyadh.
A Saudi opposition group reports that WAMY disseminates literature encouraging “religious hatred and violence against Jews, Christians, Shi’a and Ashaari Muslims.” Evidently, as a trustee of this group, Anwar Ibrahim is far from advocating moderate Islam.
Ibrahim and his family were also the beneficiaries of an apparent tax fraud perpetrated by IIIT. The same tax filings showing a donation to the al-Haramian foundation show $92,200 in contributions to Ibrahim’s daughter, Nurul Izzah. IIIT violated U.S. law when it wrote “none” under “Donee’s relationship” when listing donations to Ibrahim’s daughter. The group would have lost its tax-exempt status had it been known that it was sending money to the family member of a director. Ibrahim never disavowed this act when given the chance and even stated explicitly that these contributions were made for the education of his six children.
Moreover, the International Free Anwar Campaign (IFAC), which was established when Ibrahim was in a Malaysian prison, has some apparent links to al Qaeda. Rahim Ghouse, who was an IFAC leader based out of Melbourne, Australia, had business dealings with Yassin al-Qadi, who is on the Treasury Department’s list of Specially Designated Terrorists for funding al Qaeda. While this alone is not conclusive, it should have raised a red flag. Instead, SAIS assigned Ibrahim to “counsel students who wish to learn more about Southeast Asia and the Muslim world.”
Perhaps most importantly, Ibrahim never disavowed IIIT’s support of terrorism. On the contrary: in an October 25, 2003 response to the broadcasting of terror-supporting charges against IIIT on Australian television, he effusively praised the organization and said that charges against it were politically motivated.
SAIS also recently announced a fellowship, funded by W.W. Norton & Company, for students with the “firm intention to pursue a career that promotes international understanding between the United States and other countries and works toward the goal of preventing terrorism.” In light of fellowships granted to Mustafa El Khalfi and Anwar Ibrahim, it seems that SAIS, is doing the exact opposite.
SAIS, however, recently lost Ibrahim to the newly renamed Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, at Georgetown University, where he lectures “on several topics. “ It is ironic that this trustee of WAMY, which supports HAMAS and has been implicated in funding al Qaeda and other Islamist organizations, has been assigned to teach Georgetown students “modernity in Islam, [and] interfaith understanding.”
Menurut Dr Novandri, Anwar mengaku dengan kenyataan 'tax fraud' tersebut.
Apa kata Mahfuz ?
Apa kena mengena IIIT dengan PAS dan Mahfuz? Memang tidak ada kena mengena secara terus tetapi Mahfuz tidak adil apabila hanya sibuk mengenai calon pilihan raya kecil Permatang Pasir tetapi enggan membuat pendedahan terhadap anak pemimpin pakatan pembangkang.
Menurut Dr Novandri, jika parti PAS benar-benar mahukan calon dan parti Pakatan Rakyat bersih, beliau mencabar Mahfuz Omar untuk membuka mulut beliau dan berdepan dengan Anwar Ibrahim dan menanyakan beliau satu 'tax fraud' oleh IIIT sebagai bentuk sumbangan kepada Nurul Izzah, anak Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim oleh al-Haramian foundation?
Ini kerana: Ibrahim and his family were also the beneficiaries of an apparent tax fraud perpetrated by IIIT. The same tax filings showing a donation to the al-Haramian foundation show $92,200 in contributions to Ibrahim’s daughter, Nurul Izzah?
IIITviolated U.S. law when it wrote “none” under “Donee’s relationship” when listing donations to Ibrahim’s daughter. The group would have lost its tax-exempt status had it been known that it was sending money to the family member of a director.
Ibrahim never disavowed this act when given the chance and even stated explicitly that these contributions were made for the education of his six children…
Untuk lebih jelas, baca petikan ini:
Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced Terror By: Ilan Weinglass
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, January 12, 2006
Johns Hopkins University is demonstrating a disturbing pattern of awarding fellowships to Islamists with an avowedly anti-Western agenda. Mustafa El Khalfi, the Moroccan Islamist who was recently awarded a fellowship at the university’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), is not the first. In March of 2005, SAIS granted a visiting fellowship to Anwar Ibrahim, a terror-supporting Malaysian Islamist whose Virginia-based organization apparently committed tax fraud in his benefit.
On March 30, 2005, SAIS announced that Ibrahim, the former deputy prime minister of Malaysia, was joining the university’s Foreign Policy Institute, as a visiting scholar. Ibrahim was to “present seminars on contemporary Southeast Asian politics, economic reform, Islam and democracy…[and] join in SAIS activities.”
The announcement by SAIS said that Ibrahim would also be working on “a project examining democratization in the Muslim world.” While SAIS described him “as a strong advocate for civil society, economic liberalization, moderate Islam and democratic governance,” publicly available evidence shows the opposite. A quick glance at his website reveals a prominently featured photo of Ibrahim together with Yusuf Qaradawi, a leading Islamist scholar who is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and supports HAMAS, and who recently issued a fatwa calling for the Islamic conquest of Europe.
Anwar Ibrahim is a founder and director of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a think tank in Virginia that has alleged links to terrorism. IIIT’s 2003 tax-exempt IRS filing lists a $720 donation to the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation of Ashland, Oregon, which was designated as a terrorist funding organization by the U.S. government in 2004. Among the Treasury Department’s findings were that the Oregon branch of al-Haramain engaged in tax fraud, money laundering, supporting Chechen mujahideen affiliated with al Qaeda, and had “direct links between the U.S. branch and Usama bin Laden.” In fact, many of al – Haramain’s offices around the world were closed for supporting terrorism.
There is more evidence of IIIT’s links to terrorism. A few examples: according to court documents, in the early 1990s IIIT donated at least $50,000 to a think tank run by Sami al-Arian, the World Islamic and Study Enterprise (WISE), that served as a front group for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. IIIT is also named as a defendant in two class-action lawsuits brought by victims of the 9/11 attacks.
One alleges that IIIT received the bulk of its operating expenses from the SAAR network, whose component groups are accused in another class-action suit of being “fronts for the sponsor of al Qaeda and international terror.” The same suit lists IIIT as well as every officer of IIIT besides Anwar Ibrahim as a supporter of the SAAR network. This public information was available to SAIS, yet the school extended a fellowship to Ibrahim.
Ibrahim, along with three other IIIT directors, is also a trustee of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). According to congressional testimony of testimony of Jonathan Winer, former Deputy Secretary of State for International Law Enforcement, in October 2002 WAMY made Hamas leader Khalid Mishal an “honored guest” at a conference held in Riyadh.
A Saudi opposition group reports that WAMY disseminates literature encouraging “religious hatred and violence against Jews, Christians, Shi’a and Ashaari Muslims.” Evidently, as a trustee of this group, Anwar Ibrahim is far from advocating moderate Islam.
Ibrahim and his family were also the beneficiaries of an apparent tax fraud perpetrated by IIIT. The same tax filings showing a donation to the al-Haramian foundation show $92,200 in contributions to Ibrahim’s daughter, Nurul Izzah. IIIT violated U.S. law when it wrote “none” under “Donee’s relationship” when listing donations to Ibrahim’s daughter. The group would have lost its tax-exempt status had it been known that it was sending money to the family member of a director. Ibrahim never disavowed this act when given the chance and even stated explicitly that these contributions were made for the education of his six children.
Moreover, the International Free Anwar Campaign (IFAC), which was established when Ibrahim was in a Malaysian prison, has some apparent links to al Qaeda. Rahim Ghouse, who was an IFAC leader based out of Melbourne, Australia, had business dealings with Yassin al-Qadi, who is on the Treasury Department’s list of Specially Designated Terrorists for funding al Qaeda. While this alone is not conclusive, it should have raised a red flag. Instead, SAIS assigned Ibrahim to “counsel students who wish to learn more about Southeast Asia and the Muslim world.”
Perhaps most importantly, Ibrahim never disavowed IIIT’s support of terrorism. On the contrary: in an October 25, 2003 response to the broadcasting of terror-supporting charges against IIIT on Australian television, he effusively praised the organization and said that charges against it were politically motivated.
SAIS also recently announced a fellowship, funded by W.W. Norton & Company, for students with the “firm intention to pursue a career that promotes international understanding between the United States and other countries and works toward the goal of preventing terrorism.” In light of fellowships granted to Mustafa El Khalfi and Anwar Ibrahim, it seems that SAIS, is doing the exact opposite.
SAIS, however, recently lost Ibrahim to the newly renamed Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, at Georgetown University, where he lectures “on several topics. “ It is ironic that this trustee of WAMY, which supports HAMAS and has been implicated in funding al Qaeda and other Islamist organizations, has been assigned to teach Georgetown students “modernity in Islam, [and] interfaith understanding.”
Menurut Dr Novandri, Anwar mengaku dengan kenyataan 'tax fraud' tersebut.
Apa kata Mahfuz ?