From premises to checkpoints: allegations of selective enforcement and business protection
Five men, two chickens and cockfighting equipment: a screenshot of a Miri enforcement statement lists these results. Those arrested were aged 56 to 75; preliminary investigations said they admitted attending cockfighting gambling.
The operation occurred around 6 p.m. on 5 October 2024. The statement was issued the next day and posted by Telegram channel @Sg265alibaba on 10 October. It identifies an open area in Miri without naming the venue or specifying who organised, collected money or operated the business.
A reader message beside it discusses something else: police had come, but cockfighting had resumed. Calling it “wayang”, the reader accuses the operation of being theatre. The channel's own text thanks local police for responding, while the screenshot reply encourages continued observation and appreciation of the police.
One statement, two reactions. Some see action; others watch the business afterwards.
This is the recurring gap: people at the scene were taken away, but what happened to those running the business?
November 2024 Miri complaints make the dissatisfaction more specific. Contributors complain that only players were arrested, not owners, and shops did not face the expected electricity disconnections or licensing measures. They also allege that someone called J received ASP Sumarno's advice not to raid JOL shops and Atun / Alibaba cockfighting.
A complaint published on 30 January 2025 again contrasts arrested players with operators allegedly allowed to continue. It assigns responsibility to someone it calls DSP ER and alleges protection of operators.
These later complaints share a question but are not supplementary case files for 5 October. Whether any of the five arrested also operated the venue, or whether further investigations existed, is unanswered by the statement screenshot. “Operators untouched” must be read as a complaint.
Looking towards the operating side, Ah Tun recurs.
Material posted on 27 October includes a schedule: Kelang Kelapa Miri on the 26th and Kelang Sabong Lusut Miri on the 27th. The same submissions say Jepun owns both venues and Ah Tun is a partner, then call Ah Tun the PR liaising with KPD Miri and D7 IPK Sarawak.
Operations and liaison are assigned to one person. In the contributor's account, he helps make events happen and occupies a contact position with enforcement.
The material also says the place raided on 5 October became active again. But the statement names only an open area in Miri, while later submissions name two venues; which one “this place” means is unclear. There are two event locations and an alleged reopening connection, not a complete closure-to-reopening history for one confirmed venue.
Messages posted on 29 October deserve closer reading. One says Ah Tun told people to stop Lusut cockfighting after exposure because Miri police required it. Another says Jln Merbau and Lusut continued normally and mentions a major event on 3 November.
Ah Tun is portrayed as more than a name beneath a photograph: someone who can dismiss gatherings, organise events and relay police instructions. Yet “stopped” and “still open” in one package do not establish closure and reopening on the same day. Full message times and specific sessions are not connected.
A 3 November post mentions “stopping for two weeks”; material on 17 November again says Lusut temporarily stopped. That is insufficient to calculate an operating calendar. Other operators in Lachau, Sibu and Kuching have separate stories, not presumed intermediate stops in Ah Tun's relocation.
A submission published on 2 December explicitly links two places. It claims Lusut closed and Tudan opened after Ah Tun consulted KPD and J Miri, then describes him operating at the new location as organiser. The channel says it is “about to restart”, while the screenshot says open “today”.
Here the submission supplies a relocation claim and its explanation of the relationships enabling it. Posting dates and “today” still do not establish the actual opening date. This is an allegation of business continuity worth retaining, not a complete relocation record with addresses, operator and approvals.
Mukah has a similar dispute.
On 20 November, the channel reposted a news screenshot dated 15 November. It says police acted the previous day at Jalan Lama Selangau, where approximately 15 men fled into bushes upon seeing police; four men aged 21 to 31 were arrested.
A reader asks why only four were caught when normal events draw 50 to 200. The submission then calls Luis the local online-gambling and cockfighting PR, alleges friendship with Mukah police chief DSP Muhammad Rizal Alias and visits to his home for drinking and singing.
Again, two layers exist. News describes flight and arrests in an operation; a reader combines usual attendance, relationship rumours and arrest numbers into a “theatre” explanation. A usually large crowd does not establish 200 people that day; four arrests alone do not prove deliberate release. Luis's alleged relationship does not connect Mukah and Miri into one arrangement.
In Johor, the dispute shifts from premises to a checkpoint.
BSI material published early on 3 February 2025, according to the local Malaysia-time register, alleges that a customs officer labelled Daud cooperated with the Alibaba network to move chicken, beer and pigs through the First Link. Another post tells him to approach Nizam in Kluang and people connected with Pasir Gudang, alleging good SPRM relationships.
This is neither a cockfighting follow-up nor a cigarette seizure case. It concerns goods passing through and alleged contacts able to handle investigations. “Tomorrow we expose staged arrests” is a channel teaser, not delivery of the operation's date, cargo and outcome.
From Miri to Mukah to BSI, the material repeatedly asks: enforcement occurred, yet why do people believe the capacity to operate remained untouched?
Contributors answer with alleged contacts, people enabling continued business and people allowing goods through. Similar questions do not merge the specific people and incidents.
Arrest numbers are part of enforcement results. Who organises, profits and restarts business determines whether the public sees a full stop or a pause. The strongest dispute in this material remains at that incompletely explained point.