Who liaises, and who allegedly receives payment? PR and intermediary leads

John, William, David, AhMeng, AhBoy: five names attributed to one PR in a group of @Sg265alibaba posts.

On 29 October 2024, the channel attached an image labelled “Alibaba Main PR in Sarawak” and “Close to J Miri”, then asked someone called Polis J whether he often spent time with this PR.

The sharper accusation follows. The post alleges J took money from different sides but favoured one, demanding that he “fairly” help Miri's illicit-business bosses or face continued exposure.

“Fairness” here has an absurd quality. Instead of asking why money is accepted, the post asks how favours should be distributed afterwards. In its account, relationships become a purchasable service, with disputes over unequal allocation.

That is the entry to this PR lead. Five aliases are labels for recognising material; the substantive questions concern whom the intermediary approaches, whose interests he represents and money's alleged role. The channel has not provided enough to establish the PR's legal identity. J remains an abbreviation, not automatically DSP ER from another post.

A screenshot published on 6 November introduces a striking monthly figure: “Tiap tiap bulan bayar 50k”, linking it to protection for JOL and Atun cockfighting. Surrounding text names ER, Sumarno and Sham, alleging arrests limited to players or staged operations.

50k is memorable and invites the story to race ahead. The screenshot does not specify payer, recipient, currency, whether it is a total, one venue's fee or separate payments to several people. Names on one image do not mean each received 50k.

The KTV sentence on the same image has another condition: no licence is acceptable if monthly payments are made and CID shields complaints. No amount is stated. The preceding 50k cannot become a standard nightlife fee.

Four days later, another Miri submission mixes people and payments further.

ASP Sumarno is said to gamble frequently and give CID personnel money after winning; Kpl Daniel is described as topping up for him; Insp Sham is accused of collecting and demanding money. These actions differ. A top-up may fund a gambling account; sharing winnings has its own context; “collecting” raises questions of from whom and for whom. Replacing every verb with “collecting protection money” would tidy the account by altering it.

The submission also complains that repeated reports to JIPS, IGP and SPRM achieved nothing, blaming superior protection and money. It lists JIPS levels and police positions, alleging monthly payments upwards. The positions describe the contributor's claimed or imagined protection reach, not an itemised list of named recipients, sums and transfers. “Money can settle things” differs from “someone was paid”.

ASP Joyce enters the account on 30 January 2025.

That night's complaint calls her DSP ER's adviser and an “orang tengah” — intermediary — in receiving “habuan” and protecting gambling. It separately alleges ER received benefits to protect operators and sent monthly “ufti” to Kuching, connecting these payments with alleged OCCI Sarawak protection of ER and lack of disciplinary action.

“Adviser”, “intermediary” and “sent to Kuching” produce a vivid picture. But the material does not say operators handed Joyce 50k, which she passed to ER and then to a named Kuching superior. Readers might supply that smooth route; the post does not.

Joyce is accused of intermediating benefits without clear payer and recipient endpoints. ER is accused of sending monthly payments to Kuching, which is a place, not a recipient. OCCI appears in a protection allegation, not automatically as the established payee.

The complaint describes Miri's environment clearly but leaves gaps in actual fund movements. Its image and text were posted three seconds apart: two presentations of one submission, not two corroborating testimonies.

November material gives money another purpose: preventing publication.

A submission says ER, Sumarno and Sham do not fear ES because “geng alibaba or their PR” pay monthly so ES will not write about them; it then claims ES never exposed their activities. This supplies alleged payers, frequency and intended effect, but no explicit actual recipient or complete publication record proving “never”.

Paying to avoid coverage is a specific allegation; saying ES personally received payment goes beyond the sentence. It also cannot be joined to Joyce, Kuching or 50k as one payment. ES / Sanjeevan disputes have a separate article; here the claim retains its place in local-payment accounts.

As attention moves upwards, the numbers grow and the source changes.

The Insider Story claims Dato Ben pays TMJ RM8 million monthly for protection, and recounts Dato Ben allegedly complaining that the recipient considered it insufficient. Another point separately lists PDRM, Azam Baki and customs at 30 million each monthly. Following the provider's earlier currency correction, those three amounts are understood as ringgit. They are insider figures without accompanying payment evidence or specified months.

Another channel account has different recipients. A 3 November 2024 post claims Dato Ben, Liu and especially Pang regularly boasted in nightclubs of paying Anis 1 million monthly, FAHA 10 million, and four people close to the King 4 million.

This is the channel recounting alleged statements. It gives no currency and does not say whether 4 million covers all four or each. It does not directly name TMJ and cannot establish the insider's RM8 million claim.

A 20 November post further alleges the three said they paid Prime Minister Anwar an initial 30 million, then 10 million monthly; a “female boss” gifts worth 3 million, then 500,000 monthly; and “boss number 7” 500,000, then 300,000 monthly. English and Malay/Chinese versions express the same claim, not another round of payments. Full identities behind “female boss”, “boss number 7” and FAHA cannot be guessed.

Large numbers tempt readers to line them up and calculate a national protection ledger. But local 50k has no stated currency, high-level payments are recounted claims, and initial payments, gifts and monthly sums have different periods. Arithmetic cannot manufacture missing connections into a fund trail.

Together, the sources describe different promises: shielding operations from raids, shielding responsibility after complaints, silencing coverage or invoking senior connections to settle matters.

PR thus becomes more than a title: someone alleged to approach people, relay messages and arrange benefits. The intermediary's value lies in relationships inaccessible to others. With actual money, the questions remain basic: who pays, who receives, why, and what happens afterwards?

Five aliases can make one person mysterious; large sums can make a network seem limitless. What would make the diagram stand are the arrows still missing.